By. Smt. Beena. M, Member:
The Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case:- The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant entrusted the welding work related to the construction of his house to the Opposite Party in the month of December 2016. The wage rate fixed for the said work was Rs.2000/- per day. The condition between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that the Complainant should provide all the materials and electricity and the Opposite Party should do the welding work and he should come up with welding set by taking all its responsibility. The job assigned to the Opposite Party is to make lid for the Well having a radius of 6 feet, to make a stand for fixing the water tank, and to build a thatch with tiled roof attached to the kitchen. The Complainant assigned the work to the Opposite Party believing the words of the Opposite Party that he had much experience at this work.
3. The Complainant further averred that he had instructed for constructing the water tank with a facility to clean the tank from the sides. Further, a small door should be placed while constructing the lid of the well and should have a maximum slope for the roof of the shed portion. As a lawyer, the Complainant could not present himself all the time of the work and so he assigned the work to the Opposite Party by believing the Opposite Party's words that he is an experienced person. Even before the work was completed, the Opposite Party received the full wages from the Complainant in advance by telling that he has some financial necessities. The Opposite Party had built the lid of the well as two semi-circles without door facility to fetch out the water in the bucket from the well and there was no space to stand upon the stand of the water tank. The stand for the water tank was constructed without the facility to stand upon the stand to clean the water tank. Hence, the Complainant fell down from the stand, sustained fracture to his both leg, and was bedridden for 6 months. The shed appended to the kitchen constructed by the Opposite Party had not enough slope and hence water leaked out during the rainy season and a door could not open due to its manufacturing defects. Rats and other creatures began to enter the house through the gap of the door. Thereafter the Complainant asked the Opposite Party to rectify the defects at the cost and responsibility of the Opposite Party.
4. The Opposite party agreed in front of the mediators that he would rectify the defects by his own cost and responsibility and he asked Rs.5,000/- for the purchase of goods and so the Complainant issued a cheque without filling up the name and date. After that, the Opposite Party did not turn up and attend the phone call, and did not do any work. Hence the Complainant filed the above Complaint for getting compensation of Rs.90,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
5. The Opposite Party entered appearance and filed version. The Opposite Party admitted that he did the work. But he denied the allegations regarding the manufacturing defect and other aspects. The Opposite Party averred that the Complainant issued a cheque for Rs.5,000/- towards the amount due to him and the same was returned due to lack of fund in the Complainant’s account. After that, the Opposite Party filed a case against the Complainant before the Hon'ble JFCM Court, Sulthan Bathery. Because of this enmity, the Complainant filed this Complaint to harass the Opposite Party. Hence, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. When the case was posted for evidence, the Opposite Party did not appear and hence the Commission set him ex-parte.
7. On perusal of the complaint, version and documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?
8. Point No. 1 and 2 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity point 1 and 2 are considered together.
9. The Complainant adduced oral evidence. He was examined as PW-1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A-1, A2 and C-1. Ext. A-1 is the Lawyer notice issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. A-2 is the copy of reply notice and C-1 is the commission report. On the perusal of the report of the Commissioner and the report of the Expert, it is possible to understand the genuineness of the complaint. The Opposite Party has not challenged the commissioner’s report and the expert’s report. The Complainant has proved his case undoubtedly. So we find that there has some negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant has sustained difficulties. This is deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant deserves to get compensation and cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed with cost. The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.30,000( Rupees Thirty Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. Failing which the Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% annum for the above amount from the date of this order till the realization of the amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of February 2022.
Date of Filing: 13.03.2018.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. T. K. Benny. Advocate.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Lawyer Notice. Dt:11.09.2017.
A2. Reply Notice. Dt:23.09.2017.
C1. Commission Report. Dt:11.06.2020.
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRC, WAYANAD.
