Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/101/2022

Joseph George - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santhosh kumar s - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

   SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN             : PRESIDENT

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR          : MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                         : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.101/2022 (Filed on : 16/03/2022)

ORDER DATED : 30/06/2022

 

COMPLAINANT

Joseph George,

TC 12/2203, PMRA-110 C

Kodickal Chembilakathu veedu,

Madan Kovil Lane,

Paruthippara, Muttada.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 25

(By Adv.Ravikrishnan.N.R)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Santhosh kumar.S

TC 54/1533-2, Vakkadu veedu,

•  

Thiruvananthapuram – 695002

2. Jayachandran,

Gurudeva, Chembakamoodu,

•  

Thiruvananthapuram - 695005

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN          : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The notice issued to the opposite parties were accepted by them but failed to appear before this commission as directed and hence the opposite parties were called absent and set exparte.

3. The case of the complainant in short is that as the electricity charges were increasing and the electricity bill was also increasing, the complainant decided to install solar power plant on the roof top of his residential building. An oversear of the Kerala State Electricity Board Subdivision of Kesavadasapuram, introduced the opposite parties to the complainant saying that they were conducting an institution named Kripa agencies, who are engaged with installation of solar power plants and assured that they will properly do the same promptly. Believing his assurance, the complainant entrusted the opposite parties with the work for installing a 3 KWP solar power plant on the roof top of his residential building. The opposite parties assured that the installation works will be completed within three days and the connection to the Kerala State Electricity Board grid will be completed within two weeks. Towards the cost of the works, the opposite parties collected an amount of Rs.1, 50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) vide cheque and the said cheque was encashed by the firm of the opposite parties, M/s.Kripa Agencies, on the very next day itself. The preliminary work of metal fabrication and fixing of DP switch was done by the opposite parties in the month of August, 2021 itself. But after installation of metal works, the opposite parties neither installed the solar panels nor the inverters as assured till date. The complainant on many occasions directly as well as through mediators’ contacted the opposite parties for completing the work as assured by the opposite parties, but they have not turned up till date. Hence the complainant gave a petition to the Mannanthala Police station on 08/12/2021. As per the conciliation talks, the opposite parties executed an agreement in favour of the complainant further assuring either to complete the work within 31/12/2021 or to return the entire amount as per the terms of het agreement entered between them. But they failed to comply with the agreement either. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the commission for redressing his grievances.  

4.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The opposite parties being declared exparte, there is no evidence from the side of the opposite parties.

5. The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost.

6.       Heard. Perused records, affidavit and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were produced and marked. Ext.A1 is the agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the complaint filed by the complainant before the Inspector of Police, Mannanthala. Ext.A2 (a) is the receipt issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannanthala for accepting the complaint. Ext.A3 is the copy of the bank passport of the joint account of the complainant and his wife. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties. Ext.A1 contract proves that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party on payment of consideration. Ext.A2 shows that the complainant has filed a complaint before the police station with regard to the non commission of the work entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A3 passbook shows an entry with regard to the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only)to the opposite party on 04/08/2021. From the evidence available before this commission, it is evident that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite party by paying consideration. Exts.A1 to A3 establishes these facts. There is no contra evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by producing and marking Exs.A1 to A3, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties. In view of the above discussions, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. From the available evidence before this commission, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                  In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) with 6% interest from 04/08/2021 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only as compensation to the complainant along with Rs.2500/-(Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance / realization. The opposite parties are also directed to remove the metal fabrication works installed by them on the roof top of the complainant’s residential building within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to remove the same and the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) from the opposite parties being the expenses for removing the metal fabrication works installed on the roof top of the complainant’s residential building.

            A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30^th day of June 2022.

 

                                                                                                       Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                           Sd/-  

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.101/2022

 

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Joseph George

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                  - Copy of agreement entered into between the complainant and opposite parties.

Ext.A2                  -Copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the Inspector of Police, Mannanthala.

Ext.A2 (a)              - Copy of receipt issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannanthala for accepting the complain

Ext.A3                  - Copy of the bank passport of the joint account of the complainant and his wife

 

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibits                                        - NIL

 

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT