D.O.F:12/04/2023
D.O.O:14/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.101/2023
Dated this, the 14th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sabeera M.
W/o Abdul Raheem,
Manikoth House, Kalluravi,
Kanhangad South P O - 671531,
Kasaragod District.
(Adv: C. Shukkur) : Complainant
And
Salahudeen P
S/o Mammu,
Opposite Pilikode Panchayath
Kalikadav P O , Pilikode
Kasaragod District – 671310. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant and opposite party entered into an oral agreement by which opposite party agreed to do paving of interlock in the court yard of the complainant. The rate fixed for paving work is Rs.82 per square feet, the total plinth area is 1,200 square feet. As per the said oral agreement, the complainant transferred RS.50,000/- to the account of opposite party on 27/12/2022. On the date itself the opposite party brought necessary materials for the work to the site, but the material brought by the opposite party were not according to the agreement. When complainant expressed her hesitation as the materials brought by the opposite party are not according to the agreement, the opposite party agreed to complete the work as per the agreement entered into between them. But there after opposite party failed to comply his promise to finish the work with the material decided by them, instead the opposite party had given a complaint before Hosdurg SHO against the complainant’s husband. The Hosdurg police made an enquiry. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party cheated the complainant by receiving money without doing the work agreed between them. Due to the irresponsible act of opposite party complainant suffered huge loss and severe mental agony. The complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from opposite party along with the paid amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
Notice of opposite party returned stating intimation given. Name called absent set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination, no documents produced to prove the case.
The main question raised for consideration are,
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice /deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, issues No. 1 to 3 can be discussed together. Here the case of the complainant is that she entrusted the paving of interlock in the courtyard of her house to opposite party fixing rate Rs.82 per square feet. Both party entered into an oral agreement and on the strength of that agreement the complainant transferred Rs.50,000/- to the account of opposite party. On the same day itself, opposite party brought necessary materials for the work. But the materials brought by opposite party was not according to their agreement and opposite party failed to complete the work according to the agreement entered into between them. While going through the affidavit, there is serious deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
But the complainant has not produced documentary evidence for the payment or to show the work is incomplete and the material brought by the opposite party is of substandard. Moreover, this complaint is enquired by the Hosdurg SHO. The details of that enquiry or conclusion is not mentioned in the complaint or affidavit. The complaint is bound to prove his case either by document or by taking a commission even though it is exparte.
The complainant did not adduced any evidence to prove her allegations. Hence the commission holds that the complainant is not entitled for relief. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
