DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing 30/04/2021
CC/84/2021
Divya,
W/o Manoj kumar,
Njarakode House, Karakkurissi (P.O)
Mannarkkad Taluk,Ottapalam
Palakkad Dist. - Complainant
(By Adv. A.Sujithkumar)
Vs
1. Shaik Abdulla,
S/o. Manikka, Al Ameen Interlock and
Building Materials, Ayyappankavu,
Karakkurussi (PO),
Mannarkkad (Taluk)
Palakkad (Dist.)
(By Adv. Ratheesh Gopalan)
2. Al-Ameen Interlock and Building Materials,
Ayyappankavu,
Karakkurussi (PO),
Mannarkkad (Taluk)
Palakkad (Dist.), - Opposite parties
Rep by proprietor Shaik Abdulla, S/o Manikka,
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The opposite party did the work of laying and polishing of interlock tiles in the front yard of the newly built house of the complainant. Payment was made as agreed. According to the complainant, the opposite party had given 25 year guarantee for the tiles as well as the polishing work. But due to the poor quality of polish used, the polishing effect has been completely lost. Hence she has filed this complaint seeking a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest towards the expenses for re-polishing, along with Rs.500,000/- for mental agony and hardship suffered.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their version denying all allegations. According to them they have not charged any amount for the polishing work. Though the IA/191/2021 filed by the complainant for appointing an expert Commission to inspect the work and report the status was allowed by this Commission and a commissioner was appointed, it was dismissed subsequently as “not pressed”.
3. Issued involved
- Whether the opposite parties failed in completing the polishing work of
interlock tiles as promised ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for ?
- Reliefs permissible, if any.
4. The complainant did not file proof affidavit or mark any document as evidence. The opposite party filed proof affidavit, but did not mark any documents.
5. Issue A & B
As the complainant has not filed proof affidavit or marked any document as evidence, the complainant has failed in proving the allegation that the polishing work of the interlock tiles was defective, which amount deficiency in service. Hence we have to conclude that the complainant has not succeeded in proving any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
Issue C & D
As the complainant could not prove a prima facie case against the opposite parties, the complaint is dismissed and hence not entitled to any reliefs. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of June, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked from the side of the complainant : NIL
Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite parties : NIL
Witness examined from the side of the complainant : NIL
Witness examined from the side of the opposite party : NIL
Cost witness : NIL
Cost : NIL
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
