IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 07th day of November, 2019.
Filed on 04-04-2018
Present
1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
3. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.95/2018
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Smt.Radhamoni Sri.Vinu.P.John
W/o Moniyan Pillai Thundu Madathil
Chella Madom Thulamparambu
Vandanam P.O., Ward No.26 south, Harippad
Alappuzha Alappuzha
O R D E R
SMT.SHOLY P.R (MEMBER)
The brief of the complainant's case is as follows:-
On May 2015 the opposite party entered into a contract with the complainant for carrying out ceiling work of the entire roof of the 2nd floor of the residencial building of the complainant and received Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) from the complainant and made the complainant to believe that 25 years guarantee for its security. The opposite party has completed the above work by 8 months. But after 5 months of completion of the work the said ceiling was collapsed and within two months the major portions of the roof was damaged.
There after the complainant approached the opposite party directly and through mobile phone to fix the ceiling but the opposite party has not turned up. Hence the complaint.
Notice was issued to the opposite party from the forum has been served but the opposite party was called absent and set ex-parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 document.
The complainant has reitrated the averments in the complaint in her proof affidavit. Ext.A1 is the photograph of the colapsed and damaged roofing.
Even though the proof affidavit and Ext A1 photographs remains unchallenged by the opposite party we are of the opinion that the same are not sufficient to substantiate the claim that the opposite party has received Rs.1,00,000/- but not carried out the work properly. Hence the evidence of the complainant was re-opened suo moto and posted the case for further evidence if any to prove that the complainant has entered into any contract with the opposite party and paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party and the work carried out by the opposite party is defective.
It is further to be pointed out that there is no representation on the part of the complainant though notice issed to the complainant to appear and give evidence if any to prove her case was served on her. So many chances were given to the complainant for adducing further evidence and on 26.04.2019 again notice was issued to both sides intimating the next posting date and both parties appeared before the Forum on 06-06-19 but not adduced any further evidence to substantiate her allegations in the complaint.
Since the complainant did not adduce any further evidence nor turned up for advancing arguement we have taken up the case for order. As the complainant has miserable failed to substantiate her case that she entrusted the work to the opposite party and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed in the complaint and that the opposite party has carried out the work in a defective manner we are inclined to hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 07th day of November, 2019.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member) :
Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President) :
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Photograph
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
