D.O.F:13/08/2015
D.O.O:10/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.215/2015
Dated this, the 10th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Meena Vasantha, aged 34 years
W/o Pradeep.K.K,
Residing at Souparnika, : Complainant
Pallam, Pallikara II Village,
P.O. Uduma, Kasaragod
(Advs. Shajid Kammadam)
And
Sasi, aged about 34 years
Proprietor, Vinayaka Engineering Works,
Opp. Ranjees Theatre, : Opposite Party
Pallam, P.O. Uduma,
Kasaragod- 671319
(Adv. P. Padmanabhan)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The complainant’s husband, an NRI constructed a new house. House warming ceremony scheduled on 18/03/2015. The Opposite Party approached her husband saying that he is an expert in truss work. Believing the representation, complainant entrusted the work to Opposite Party. The Opposite Party agreed to provide Tafoode sheet on the roof for total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- including labour. Work is completed in the year April 2015. The Opposite Party received entire money. The grievance of the complainant is that the square pipe is not properly welded and same was broken. Displaced distance between one shaft to another is about 4 feet, this is unscientific, not advisable. The Opposite Party did not visit the house. The complainant therefore alleges negligence in truss work deficiency in services and complainant claims the relief to remove the roofs by the opposite Party from the house of the complainant and to re construct it scientifically by using high quality materials, or direct Opposite Party to re-pay Rs.3,50,000/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite party filed written version. The opposite Party denied the averment that they approached the complainant or represented as an expert in truss work. The allegation that water is collected in the sunshade box for the reason that the sheet put over the sunshade is not covered are absolutely false and denied. The Opposite Party denied the averment. The Opposite Party used two inch iron pipe thus Opposite Party denied the liability to pay any amount to the complainant in this regard.
3. The Opposite Party did not agree to re-construct the truss work free of cost and willingness to rectify mistake and no deficiency in service and hence complainant is to be dismissed. The Opposite Party denied that the complainant has no authority or right to sue on behalf of other person. It is denied that certain body welding works of roofing and welding in his own house.
4. The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A7 marked. Ext.A1 is letter issued by welding association, Ext.A2 to A7 cash voucher copy issues to Opposite Party by the Complainant and Ext.C1 and C2. The complainant filed IA.87/2019 to appoint an expert commission. The Opposite party did not file any documents. But filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as DW1 and also examined DW2 from their side.
5. Based on rival contentions, following issues arise for consideration in the case
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the service of opposite party in completing the truss work of complainant?
b) Whether the Complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so, for what reliefs?
6. The Ext.C1 report filed by the expert commission on 05/06/2017. In C1 the date of visit not mentioned. It shows sheets of 0.35mm is used instead of 0.45mm, pipes are of low quality but no details. Pillars are done with low range pipes, sheets are not fixed with screws, which lead to water leakage, distance is 4 feet,it must be only 2 feet.
7. But Ext.C2 is a detailed report. He visited on 09/11/2019 in the presence of parties and sufficient particulars are available. It shows that good materials are used. When there are two contradictory reports in respect of the same matter of which one report namely Ext.C2 is with more details and particulars is accepted since it contains more specific details. It also shows deficiencies in the truss work. The Opposite Party received full amount as agreed.
8. In this case, Complainant filed criminal case against one Pradeep for poor work done but finally case is withdrawn.
9. In any event there is deficiency in service rendered by the Opposite Party in completing the construction/ putting up of truss roof as per report Ext.C2. Total cost of construction calculated at Rs. 3,24, 000/- total amount paid is Rs.3,50,000/- years elapsed after truss construction. Very same truss work is there as a cover.
10. Considering the nature of work, contention of parties, the core question is use of poor quality materials or its work man ship. The difference as per Ext.C2 is only Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand only) in excess paid to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is liable to refund the same with interest from date of filing Complainant till dated of repayment.
11. Since there is deficiency in service as noted above, considering the legal action taken from 2015, and criminal Complaint in this regard is filed against one Pradeep only and it is not pending, the complainant is entitled to compensation/ damages. The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation. And the commission is of the opinion that complainant is entitled for the amount and also for cost of litigation.
12. In the result complaint is allowed in part the Opposite Party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.26,000/-(Rupees Twenty Six Thousand only) being the difference in amount spent for truss work as shown in Ext.C2 report with interest at 8% from date of Complaint till the date of payment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) being compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards the cost of litigation with 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Letter issued by welding association
A2: Cash Voucher Dt: 10/09/2014
A3: Cash Voucher Dt: 18/09/2014
A4: Cash Voucher Dt: 16/12/2014
A5: Cash Voucher Dt: 18/02/2015
A6: Cash Voucher Dt: 20/02/2015
A7: Cash Voucher Dt: 10/04/2015
C1: Report filed by the expert commission
C2: Commissioner report
Witness Cross examine
PW1: Meena Vasantha
DW1: Saseendran. V
DW2: Gopinathan.A
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
