Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/284/2019

DR.BEENA RAJAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHIYABUDHEEN .P.K - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2023

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
KARANTHUR PO,KOZHIKODE
 
Complaint Case No. CC/284/2019
( Date of Filing : 31 Aug 2019 )
 
1. DR.BEENA RAJAN
DENTAL SURGEON,NANDANAM-24/1860-A,KACHERIKUNNU,MANKAVU,KOZHIKODE-673007
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SHIYABUDHEEN .P.K
PANDARATHIL HOUSE,P.O BRAHMAKULAM,THRISSUR-680104
2. THE PROPRIETOR,INDO CONCEPT
THAIKKAD,GURUVAYOOR,THRISSUR-680101
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. V. BALAKRISHNAN ,M TECH ,MBA ,LLB, FIE Member
 HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Aug 2023
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 25th  day of August 2023

C.C.284/2019

 

Complainant

 

Dr. Beena Rajan,

Dental Surgeon,

“Nandanam” 24/1860-A,

Kacherikunnu (via),

Mankavu, Kozhikode - 673007

Opposite Parties

 

  1.   Shiyabudheen.P.K,

            Pandrathil House,

            P.O.Brahmakulam,

           Trissur - 680104

  1. The proprietor,

          ID Concept,

         Thrikkad, Guruvayoor,

        Trissur -680101

        (Corrected as per order in IA 286/22)

 

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

           This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

  1.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

    As per the job contract agreement dated 05-04-2013 executed between the husband of the complainant and the opposite parties, all the interior work of their house was entrusted to the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the work was to be completed within 90 working days from the first payment. As on 04-03-2016, a total sum of Rs.9,50,000/- was paid to the opposite parties by the complainant. But the opposite parties were lagging the work and not yet completed. Most of the works done were defective and not up to the mark. There was colour changes in the furniture. The furniture started turning yellow colour. There was termite attack on the wardrobes. All the hinges became rusty. The opposite parties did not take any positive steps to address her concerns with regards to the interior works. She had to engage other workers to rectify the defects temporarily. Though the opposite parties had agreed to rectify the defects, they did not keep their word. There was unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On 12-12-2018 she lodged a complaint before the police. The police advised her to initiate legal action. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount received by them excluding the amount spent by them for the defect free interior work done and pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and hardship suffered.

  1. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
  2. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are :
  1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
  2. Reliefs and costs.
  1. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 and A2 were marked.

 

  1. Point No.1 The complainant has approached this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The allegation is that the husband of the complainant had entered in to Ext A1 job contract agreement with the opposite parties for the interior works in their house, but the opposite parties neither carried out the work properly nor did they complete the work despite having collected Rs.9,50,000/- from the complainant. The prayer is for refund of the amount excluding that of the defect free work done by the opposite parties along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
  2.    The complainant has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext A1 is the job contract agreement dated 05-04-2013 executed between Dr. Rajan P.R, the husband of the complainant and the opposite parties and Ext A2 is the copy of the petition dated 12-12-2018 lodged by the complainant in the police station. No document showing that Dr.Rajan P R, who had executed Ext A1, had authorized the complainant to file the present complaint before this Commission.
  3.   It is well settled that in a consumer case, the onus to prove deficiency of service is on the complainant. Without proof of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged, the opposite parties cannot be held liable. The allegations in the present complaint are twofold. The first allegation is that the interior works done by the opposite parties pursuant to Ext A1 are defective in many respects. The second allegation is that the entire work is not yet completed. But apart from the bald averment in the complaint and repeated in the proof affidavit of the complainant, there is absolutely no evidence to prove the allegations. Not even a photograph of the interior work done is produced before this Commission. The complainant has not taken out a commission to ascertain the alleged defects and deficiencies in the work and also the details regarding the works yet to be completed. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the prayer in the complaint is for refund of the amount excluding that of the defect free work done. In the nature of the allegations and the prayer in the complaint, it was incumbent on the complainant to produce evidence to show the details of the defective works and the defect free works done by the opposite parties. In the absence of any such evidence, no relief as prayed for can be granted. It is true that the opposite parties remained ex-parte. But that does not automatically entitles the complainant to get an order as prayed for. It is for the complainant to prove her allegations in the complaint by adducing proper evidence so as to get an order as prayed for. But she has utterly failed to prove the allegations in the complaint.
  4.   To sum up, we find that there is no proof of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
  5. Point No.2 :  In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief as prayed for.

 

In the result, CC 284/2019 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 25th day of August 2023.

 

Date of Filing: 31-08-2019.

                                                 Sd/-                                             Sd/-                                          Sd/-    

                                      PRESIDENT                                    MEMBER                                     MEMBER  

 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Job contract agreement dated 05-04-2013 executed between Dr. Rajan P.R, the husband of the complainant and the opposite parties.

Ext A2 - Copy of the petition dated 12-12-2018 lodged by the complainant in the police station.

Exhibit  for the Opposite Party

Nil.

Witness  for the Complainant

PW1 -  Dr. Beena Rajan (Complainant)

Witnesses for the opposite parties 

Nil

                                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                              Sd/-

                                 PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                   MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                     True copy,

 

                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                           Assistant Registrar.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. P.C .PAULACHEN , M.Com, LLB]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. V. BALAKRISHNAN ,M TECH ,MBA ,LLB, FIE]
Member
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. PRIYA . S , BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM)]
MEMBER
 

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.