Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/08/38

V.Bhaskaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secratary,Mararikulam South Grama Panchayath - Opp.Party(s)

B.Somanatha Kurup

29 Aug 2008

ORDER


Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/38

V.Bhaskaran
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secratary,Mararikulam South Grama Panchayath
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Bhaskaran has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Secretary, Grama Panchayath, Mararikulam South. The contentions are that, he was selected as Convener for the purpose of undertaking deepening work of canal passing though Ward No. 3 and 4 of the Mararikulam South Grama Panchayath. At the time of execution of the agreement, the opposite party had assured the complainant that 25% of the expenditure on estimated cost will be released in advance and the balance will be after the completion of the work with completion certificate. After the completion of the said work as per the specification and the direction of the Engineer, the opposite party has not released the payment in advance or after the completion of the work. The complainant had spent a total sum of Rs. 44,000/- out of his pocket to complete the said work. In spite of repeated requests, the opposite party has not taken any earnest steps to release the agreed of Rs. 44,200/- to the complainant. Hence this complaint seeking relief, alleging deficiency in service. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. But they have not entered appearance before this forum for filing version. Considering the continuous absence of the opposite party, they were set exparte on 14-07-2008. 3. Considering the contentions of the complainant this forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Relief and costs. 4. Issues 1 and 2: - On the side of the complainant, he has filed proof affidavit and produced documents – Exts. A1 to A3 – marked. Ext. A1 is the agreement dated March, 2005 executed by the complainant. Ext. A2 is the detailed estimate of Rs. 44,000/- regarding the work, after duly certified by the Asst. Engineer, LSGD (PW) of Mararikulam Grama Panchayath. Ext. A3 is the Lawyer’s notice of the complainant to the opposite party, requesting to release the fund. On a detailed perusal of the said documents it can be seen that, as per the agreement the complainant has completed the work as per the specification and it was certified by the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party. But the opposite party has not released the amount to the complainant. Opposite party has not entered appearance before this forum, even though, they have accepted the notice. It shows that negligent attitude towards this matter. In this respect, it can be seen that the contentions raised by the complainant are genuine and there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get the amount of the said work as per the agreement. Any kind of denial of release of the amount in connection with the work will come within the purview of “deficiency in service” on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has a prima facie case and the complaint is to be allowed. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. In this respect, we are of the view that the actions of the opposite party are highly illegal arbitrary and unauthorized. The opposite party is bound to pay the said amount to the complainant. Since there is deficiency in service, and the irresponsible way of dealing this matter, the opposite party is liable to pay the compensation for mental agony, hardship, inconvenience and loss of the complainant. Hence, we hereby direct the opposite party to release the amount of Rs. 44,000/- (Rupees Forty Four Thousand only) to the complainant along with 18% interest from 31-03-2005 together with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) for mental agony of the complainant together with a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to pay the said amount to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2008 Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant: - Ext. A1 --/03/2005 Copy of agreement Ext. A2 - Copy of detailed estimate of Rs. 44,000/- Ext. A3 22/05/2007 Copy of Lawyer’s notice Evidence of the Opposite party: - NIL // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite party/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:




......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi