IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:            President

K.P.Preethakumari:                  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                        Member

Dated this,  the 20^th day of     January  2010.

C.C.No.19/08

Anil.T.K.,

EP/IV/660,

Pullarampil House,                                           

Elayavoor,                                                                                :           Complainant

Mundayad P.O.,

Kannur – 670 597.

(Rep. by Adv.Joe George)                                                       

Vs.

Saseendran,

‘Market Guards’,

C.P.Towers,

S.N.College Junction,                                                               :           Opposite Party

Thottada,                                                                                             

Kannur-670 007.

(Rep. by Adv.Shashi D. Nambiar)

                                                            O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member.

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.52,760/- as compensation including  Rs.2,760/-  received by Opposite Party as remuneration with cost.

The case of the Complainant is that some portion of the concrete roof of the house of the Complainant was leaking during rainy season and he contacted the Opposite Party for curing the complaint on the basis of the advertisement seen in the newspaper regarding leak proofing work.  The Opposite Party visited the house of the Complainant on 25.04.2007 and assured the Complainant that all the defects would be cured by leak proofing work and hence he entrusted the work to Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party offered two year guarantee for the leak proofing work, but it has not withstood for a single rainy season.  The Opposite Party has received Rs.2760/- as remuneration for his work.  But during the first rain itself the concrete was found leaking than before and the same was intimated to Opposite Party and he had inspected the house of the Complainant and told the Complainant that the leakage was happened due to deficient chemicals and the same will be cured by him soon.  But even after the repeated request the Opposite Party is not ready to cure the defect.  Due to the leakage during heavy raining and due to wetting of the wall, the electricity leakage also happened and a dangerous situation arose.    Complainant and his family suffered a lot on account of deficient service rendered by Opposite Party.  So the Complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party.  Even though he has received the same he neither cured the defect nor replied.   Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum, the Opposite Party has appeared through Adv.Sashi D.Nambiar and filed his version.  The Opposite Party admits that he has carried out the curing of defective work of the concrete of the house of the Complainant.  But according to the Opposite Party the roof concrete is very weak due to the poor workmanship and according to him Rs.8,000/- is required for completely removing the defects.  But due to lack of money and  due to Complainant’s compulsion, the Opposite Party agreed to do temporary stoppage work at Rs.2,700/- with no warranty and the Complainant was advised to put necessary pipes to drain the water accumulated in the terrace on his own cost and the same was agreed by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party has taken 1½ days for his work, which was not a permanent solution and the same was informed to the Complainant and was directed to take steps for second coating in the roof in order to withstand the season, temporarily.  During rainy season the Opposite Party inspected the house as per the request of the Complainant and it was found that the drain pipe fitted by the Complainant is very narrow and the terrace is covered full of water and water cannot escape through the drain pipe fitted.  Due to lack of water pipe above the terrace, the entire water is accumulated in the area where the Opposite Party undertaken the preliminary coating at the insistence of the Complainant for stopping the temporary leakage.  Since the Complainant has not paid for purchasing the necessary materials for undertaking the required coating work, it could not be materialized.  Before conducting coating work, it is noticed that certain irregular, unscientific and defective works carried out in terrace for preventing leakage from the roof, in the earlier occasion and the temporary work was done for stopping the leakage as per the direction of the Complainant.  The leakage in the concrete occurred due to the poor workmanship and lack of raw materials required during construction and such defects cannot be cured permanently.  So there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief.
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts. A1 to A5, and C1.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

            The Complainant’s case is that due to deficient leak proofing work of the Opposite Party the concrete roof showed sign of heavy leakage and due to this cracks appeared as the wall of the house and electricity leakage also caused and hence he has suffered severe mental hardship and financial loss.  The Complainant has produced Ext.A1 notice, A2 bill dated 25.04,2002, A3 Order Form dtd. 03.05.2007, A4 lawyer notice, A5 acknowledgment card and C1, Commission Report.  The admission of opposite party along with Ext.A1 to A5 shows that he had done the leak proofing work for the Complainant.  But according to the Opposite Party Rs.8,000/- is required for completely removing the defects and hence due to lack of money as per the request of the Complainant he had done temporary stoppage of leak by estimating Rs.2,760/- and he received only Rs.1,000/- towards this amount.  But Ext.A3 is an order form given by Opposite Party and it was given after the work was done. In it the total amount is shown as Rs.2,760/- and written  as advance Rs.1,560/- and balance Rs.1,260/-.  The Opposite Party denied the version of the Complainant that he has paid the amount of Rs.2,700/- and receipt was not given by the Opposite Party.  But the Ext.A3 given by the Opposite Party after the work was done ie. 03.05.2007 shows that the Opposite Party has received Rs.1,560/-.  So as per the receipt the Complainant has to pay balance amount of Rs.1,260 to the Opposite Party.  The commissioner reported that “eo¡v {]q^nwKv hÀ¡v L«§fmbn«mWv sNt¿­nbnê¶Xv. F¶m BbXv Hê tIm«p am{Xta sNbvXn«pÅp. Bhiyamb I|dnwKv apXembh sNbvXp Imé¶nÃ. {io iio{µ³ F¶bmÄ Øe¯v h¨v \S¯nb hniZoIcW¯n \n¶v BbXv hyàamæìap­v.”

The Opposite Party contented that he has done only the temporary work for stoppage of leak.  The Opposite Party also contented that he was not able to complete the next coating work, since the Complainant has defaulted the payment.  From C1 report it is clear that the leakage was caused due to incomplete work.  It is clear that the Complainant has not paid the entire amount for the first work itself.  The Complainant has not produced document to show that the entire amount was given to Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party deposed that “ 1 ½  ZnhkwsIm­v 2 t]À ]WnsbSp¯mWv {]hr¯n ]qÀ¯oIcn¨Xv. ]Iepw cm{Xnbpw IqSnbmWv tPmen sNbvXXv.  c­v t]Àçw IqSn 800 cq]  Iqen    sImSp¯p. chemicals \v GItZiw 2000 cq] sNehmbn.

But the Complainant has not disputed the version of the Opposite Party.  So it is clear that

for the first coating work itself, the Opposite Party had incurred Rs.2,800/- as expense and the Complainant has not even paid that amount.  Moreover we all know the coolie of workers now a days and price of materials, etc.  So we are not in a position to attribute negligence or deficiency of service upon the Opposite Party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

            In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Sd/                               Sd/-                             Sd/-

President                      Member                       Member          

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Notice published for the OP.

A2. Bill  dtd.25.4.07 issued by OP.

A3. Order Form dtd. 03.05.2007.

A4. Lawyer notice sent for complainant

A5. Acknowledgement issued by Dept. of Posts.

Exhibits for the opposite party : Nil

Exhibits for the court.

C1.Commission report

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.Anil.T.K.

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1: Saseendran.N.R.                                                                                                                                                                      / /Forwarded by Order//

       Senior Superintendent.

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.