IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 26th day of April, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.219/11 (Filed on 14.11.2011)
Between:
C.R. Rajan,
Chilampoly House,
Muthoor.P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 107. ….. Complainant
And:
Sreekumar.
Proprietor,
Sree engineering Works,
Muthoor Kuttappuzha Housing Col. Road,
Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla.
(By Adv. Vineetha. V) ….. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant has hired the service of opposite party for welding two hinges in his house gate. The opposite party sent two workers to complainant’s house which is only one kilometers from the opposite party’s shop. Complainant provided hinges in his house gate. The opposite party sent two workers to complainant’s house which is only o1 kilo meters from opposite party’s shop. Complainant provided the hinges and transportation of two workers and welding set. The work was completed within 15 minutes. The workers demand `1,000 as charge and complainant withdrawn `1,000 from ATM and paid them. On next day complainant approached the opposite party and informed that the charge is exorbitant. Opposite party replied that he could not get any work from him earlier and that the excess payment would be treated as an advance against any work in future. Since the issue has not settled, complainant filed a petition before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. Opposite party admitted before the police that he accepted ` 1,000 but would not return the excess amount. Since the dispute is not resolved, Sub Inspector of Police advised to file a complaint before this Forum. Hence this complaint for return of the excess charge of ` 900 with the cost hardship of ` 2,000, mental agony for ` 20,000 and a cost of ` 2,000. The total amount of claim is ` 24,900.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version stating that he has been running an Engineering Works Institution named Sree Engineering Works. According to him, neither he nor the said institute undertakes any welding works as alleged. But 3 months ago complainant come near by opposite party’s institution, a stitching unit run by opposite party’s relative Vinu for cutting the length and size of old shirts. The said Vinu has spent a day for stitching the shirt and on completion it returned. Complainant paid only ` 60 as labour charge. But Vinu’s wife has agitated and demanded for raising the charge and informed not to come with old clothes as such. When the dispute has been going on opposite party asked the complainant whether there is any difficulty in paying proper remuneration to poor workers. Then the complainant warned that opposite party hadn’t look on his business.
4. After the above incident, complainant approached the opposite party and wanted to do some work in his residence. But opposite party has some other engagement at that period and therefore he has not undertake the work and the same was informed to him. Opposite party has either promise to do work or to done any work as alleged.
5. Moreover a few months ago, complainant and his neighbour Chandrabose were not in terms. Thereafter Muthoor SNDP volunteers came and settled the matter with complainant. On the way some of the volunteers meet opposite party and renewed the friendship by speaking some words. On watching the seen complainant misunderstood that opposite party also included in that party. All the said vengeance is the basis of this false complaint. Moreover, the complainant is an unwanted litigator who filed this frivolous complaint only for harassing the opposite party. Therefore opposite party canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs & Costs?
7. Evidence of the complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, PW2, DW2 and marked Exts.A1 to a4. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
8. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the copy of petition filed before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla. Ext.A2 is the receipt of Ext.A1 issued by the Thiruvalla Police Station. Ext.A3 is the bill of `100 the price of two pin hinges. Ext.A4 is the bill issued by Vasanth & Associates on 04.02.2009 in which the labour charge is ` 60 for fitting iron metals of 1 Kg.
9. In order to prove the opposite party’s contention, opposite party was examined as DW1. Apart from oral evidence, opposite party has not adduced any documentary evidence.
10. On the basis of the contention and averment of the parties, we have perused the entire material on record. Complainant’s case is that opposite party charged exorbitant charges of ` 1,000 for spot welding of two hinges in his gate. When he demanded the return of excess amount opposite party refused by stating that the excess payment would be treated as an advance against any future work?
11. According to opposite party, he or his institution do not undertake any welding work as alleged by complainant. This complaint is filed only for wreck vengeance against opposite party.
12. On a perusal of Exts.A1 and A2, it is revealed that complainant has been filed a petition before the Thiruvalla police with regard to the exorbitant amount charged. Ext.A2 shows that the rate of charge for 1 Kg. iron material with entire fabrication is 2009 was ` 60/Kg.
13. Opposite party admitted that the strength of workers in his institution is five. Therefore, there is every possibility for senting workers for outdoor work by opposite party. It is also presumed that workers cannot do the said work without the knowledge of opposite party by using tools. This fact is corroborated by the deposition of DW1 which is as follows: “Fsâ tPmen-¡mÀ Fsâ Adn-hn-ÃmsX Fsâ tools D]-tbm-Kn¨v ]pd¯v ]Wn sN¿m-dnÔ. From the above deposition, there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant’s contention that the welding work of two hinges had done by opposite party’s two workers by using welding set.
14. Material on record shows that there is contradiction and discrepancies in opposite party’s version and deposition. Opposite party’s specific contention is that the basis of the complaint is the prior enimity of the complainant against opposite party. He also narrated three incidents in different context as reasons for prior enimity. But DW1 contradicted his earlier version in his deposition which is as follows: “R§Ä X½n bmsXmcp i{Xp-X-bp-anÔ.
15. Moreover, there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW2 which also corroborated the complainant’s case. Opposite party has also failed to adduce any material evidence either to prove their contention or to disprove the complainant’s case. From the overall facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record it is clear that complainant’s welding work had done by opposite party’s workers and accepted ` 1,000 as charges by opposite party. Moreover, opposite party has not a contention that the charge of `1,000 is proper remuneration and not exorbitant.
16. It is pertinent to note that as per ext.A3 the charge of `60 is the rate of 2009 period. According to complainant, the actual charge is Rs.100 and he is entitled to return ` 900. Considering the work of two workers, duration and using of welding set etc. the charge has to be raised from ` 100 to ` 300 we do so. Therefore, opposite party is bound to return ` 700 the excess amount realized from complaint. Charging exorbitant amount for piece work is illegal, unethical and against all cannons of consumer justice. It is a clear deficiency of service. Therefore, complaint is maintainable and allowable.
17. Since complainant has claimed exorbitant amount, the same was not allowable due to lack of cogent evidence. Therefore, complaint is allowable in part with compensation and cost.
18. In the result, complaint is allowed in part, thereby opposite party is directed to return ` 700 (Rupees Seven hundred only) with a compensation of ` 750 (Rupees Seven hundred and fifty only) and a cost of ` 250 (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 9% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of April, 2012.
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri,. Jacob Stephen (President) :
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) :
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : C.R. Rajan.
PW2 : Binu James
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of petition dated 08.10.2011 filed by the
complainant before the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla.
A2 : Receipt dated 11.10.11 of Ext.A1 issued by the Thiruvalla
Police Station.
A3 : Bill dated 06.10.2011 for `100 for the price of two pin
hinges.
A4 : Bill dated 04.02.2009 for ` 7,350 issued by Vasanth &
Associates, Thiruvalla to the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 : Sreekumar
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) C.R. Rajan, Chilampoly House, Muthoor.P.O.,
Thiruvalla – 689 107.
(2) Sreekumar, Proprietor, Sree Engineering Works,
Muthoor Kuttappuzha Housing Col. Road,
Muthoor.P.O., Thiruvalla.
(3) The Stock File.
