This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of `20,939 the bill amount along with `60,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of “Compact Engineering and he had agreed with opposite party to install hundred street light all over the sixteen wards of opposite party’s panchayath as per the agreement dated 25.03.09. The complainant submitted bill on  29.03.2010 before the opposite party for an amount of  `1,48,300 after installing  40 watts automatic tube lights along with the certificates of  concerned ward members. But the opposite party has not sanctioned the above amount and kept the bill for six months even though the opposite party has bound to pay the entire bill for the year before ending the financial year i.e. 31<sup>st</sup> March. The complainant had completed the work by borrowing from others, so the complainant was constrained to issue a lawyer notice to opposite party on 20.09.2010. But instead of sanctioning the bill the opposite party had persuaded the complainant to execute  a supplementary agreement to the effect that the work will be completed within 31.10.10 and accordingly the opposite party had sanctioned `1,27,361 by recording that the work was completed on 31.10.10. The opposite party had sanctioned the amount only for 97 street light without labour charge and after deducting 70 than the amount shown in the approved quotation. In fact the complainant had completed the work during the same financial year and due to deficient service of opposite party, they failed to sanction the amount. Moreover the opposite party had sanctioned only `1,27,361, instead of `1,48,300. So the opposite party has to pay a balance amount of `29,939 to the complainant. Due to the deficient service of opposite party the complainant has suffered both mentally, financially and physical hardship. So the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed their version admitting the work and agreement. According to opposite party as per the agreement the complainant has to complete the work before 25^th May 2009. But he has defaulted the work and has not completed within the stipulated time. So the work was included as spill over work of 2010-11 and the complainant agreed to complete the work within September 2010 and executed a revised agreement to that effect. It is incorrect to say that the revised agreement was executed according to the compulsion of opposite party. The opposite party had handed over the cheque to complainant soon after he had completed the work. The opposite party is always ready to include the amount for completing the work in the Panchayth Fund. The KSEB had certified that the complainant had installed 97 streets light. According to the terms and condition of KSEB, they have to fix the light in the post and for that Panchayath has to deposited `200 per post before KSEB. The Panchayath had deposited the amount before opposite party from deducting 100 each from the tender amount and `100 from Panchayath Fund. As per KSEB rules the complainant is not entitled to `100 per post as labour charge and hence the Panchayth had paid the amount to complainant after deducting `9700 from the quotation. So the complainant has received the entire amount to which he is entitled to get. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.      

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of

    opposite party?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as

     prayed in  the complaint?

          3.  Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A11 and B1 and B2.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

          The complainant contended that the opposite party has not sanctioned the entire amount as per the quotation for the work of erecting hundred street lights all over Chokli Grama Panchayath. He further contended that even though he had completed the work before 30.03.2010, the opposite party had sanctioned the amount only on 20.10.2010 as spill over work of the financial year 2010-2011. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as claim letter dt.26.03.10, copy of  notice issued by the Panchayath, Acknowledgement, copy of lawyer notice, copy of supplementary agreement dt. 20.10.10, claim application dt. 20.10.10, copy of cheque dt. 20.10.10, quotation dt.11.03.09, certificates issued by Panchayath members, original of claim dt.26.03.10, original notice issued to complainant by opposite party etc. In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined DW1 and copy of minutes etc. According to the complainant he had agreed with the panchayth for erecting 100 lights and Ext.A8 is the quotations submitted by the complainant for erecting 100 lights. But as per the decision NO.64/09 of Panchayath committee dt. 27.5.09, it is seen that the complainant’s quotation was accepted by the Panchayath for supplying materials for repairing the street lights. But the opposite party admits that the complainant had erected light on 97 posts and had released `1,27,361 on 20.10.10. According to opposite party the light has to be fitted on the post by the electricity board and has to pay `200 to the KSEB for this and accordingly panchayth has paid `200 per post by adding `100 from the tender amount along with 100 from the panchayth fund. But the opposite party has not produced any documents to show that the opposite party has to pay `200 to the KSEB and also to the effect that they had paid `200 per light to the KSEB. Moreover the opposite party admitted that the complainant had erected 97 lights. Complainant contended that he had erected 100 lights and produced certificate of   Panchayath members. But the certificates produced are only for 79 numbers of lights. So it is clear that complainant had fitted only 97 numbers of light and hence as per quotation he is entitled to get 1413 X 97 = `1,37,061. But he has received `1,27,361 by way of cheque. So he is entitled to get `9,700 as balance from the opposite party and hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get `9,700 as balance amount for the work done along with `1000 as cost. Considering the special circumstances we are not awarding compensation and passed orders accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay `9,700 (Rupees Nine thousand Seven hundred only) as balance along with  `1,000 (Rupees One  thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                            Sd/-                   Sd/-                

                     President                Member   

  APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.  Copy of the letter dt. 26.3.10 sent to OP

A2. Copy of the notice sent to OP

A3.  Copy of the receipt issued by OP dt. 29.3.10

A4.  Copy of lawyer notice sent to OP

A5.  Copy of supplementary agreement

A6. Copy of the letter sent to OP

A7. Copy of the cheque dt. 20.10.10 issued to complainant

A8.  Quotation dt.11.3.09 of complainant

A9.  Copies of certificates issued by Members, Chockli Grama

        panchayath

A10. Copy of the letter dt. 26.3.10 sent to OP

A11.  Notice issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1 & B2. Copy of the minutes book Decision No.47/08 & 62/10

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

 Witness examined for the opposite parties:

DW1.K.Padmavthi                               /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.