Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/17/515

P Chandrasekharan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Srikrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

23 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

     SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

  SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR          : MEMBER

                                  SRI.VIJU.V.R                  : MEMBER

CC.NO.515/2017 (Filed on: 26/12/2017)

ORDER DATED : 23/12/2022

COMPLAINANT

P.Chandrasekharan

TC.36/736(1), Avani, Samajam Lane,

Perunthanni, Vallakkadavu.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 8

(Party in person)

                                                          VS

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

1. Sreekrishnan (Deceased)

T.K.C.Engineering Works,

Arasumoodu, Manvila,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. Smt.Jayanthi,
3.  

T.K.Sadanam, Arasumoodu, Manvila,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

3. Smt.Vineethakrishnan,

D/o.Late Sreekrishnan,

T.K.Sadanam, Arasumoodu, Manvila,

•  

(Additional opposite parties 2 & 3 are impleaded as per Order in IA.No.95/19 dated 27/08/2019)

 

(OP1 by Adv.K.S.Gopinathan Nair)

(OPS 2 & 3 by Adv.R.T.Anoop & Others)

           

ORDER

SRI.VIJU  V.R.  : MEMBER

1.       The brief facts of the case is that the complainant entrusted the deceased 1^st opposite party to construct a gate for his newly constructed house. As an advance complainant paid an amount of Rs 25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) to the deceased 1^st opposite party. On 18/1/2017 an agreement was written between the complainant & deceased 1^st opposite party stating that the construction of the gate will be completed within 17 days from the agreement date. But the deceased 1^st opposite party after receiving the advance amount neither constructed the gate nor returned the advanced amount. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2.       The deceased 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version and after that due to the demise of 1^st opposite party his legal heirs were impleaded as per I.A.No. 95/19 as 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties.  Eventhough opposite parties 1 &2 entered appearance they have not filed any additional version. The deceased 1^st opposite party has averred that complaint is a frivolous one. It is admitted by the deceased first opposite party that he had received Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as advance from the complainant for constructing  the gate. But when the deceased first opposite party began to construct the gate the complainant instructed the deceased first opposite party to do truss work to store the belongings of the old house before constructing the gate. It was also decided to start work on daily wages. Then after taking the amounts paid by the complainant to the deceased first opposite party in the form of salary & machine charges , the balance amount owed by the complainant to the deceased first opposite party was Rs.42,300/- (Rupees forty two thousand and three hundred only). The deceased first opposite party deduced the advance amount from Rs.42,300/- (Rupees fourty two thousand and three hundred only) and demanded Rs.17,300/- (Rupees seven thousand and three hundred only) as the balance amount from the complainant. The complainant also agreed to pay additional amount for the additional work done by the deceased first opposite party. But the after work was completed the complainant refused to pay for additional works & instead of paying it , he complained to the police also. The machine used by the deceased first opposite party was also kept in custody by the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint in an apprehension that the deceased first opposite party will sue against him. There is no deficiency in service on the part deceased first opposite party, hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.

3.       Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4.       Issues (i) and (ii)

Both these issues were considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced two documents which were marked as Ext.A1 & A2.  The complainant has also produced one CD which is marked as MO1. It can be seen from Ext.A1 that the deceased first opposite party has received Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)  from the complainant for constructing the gate. Even though the legal heirs appeared before this commission they have not filed proof affidavit nor produced any evidence to prove their case, hence the deposition of the complainants stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evident putforth by the complainant. Since there is no contra evidence from the side of 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties who are the legal heirs of the deceased first opposite party, they are liable for the act done by the deceased first opposite party.   From the document produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of the deceased first opposite party, which has to be compensated by 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties, hence the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. 

                In the result complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 2 &3 are jointly & severally directed to refund Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing this complaint .i.e. from 26/12/2017and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only ) as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost will carry an interest  @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.

              A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 23^rd day of December 2022.

 

                                                                               Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

  PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                       

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

   INDEX

CC.NO.515/17

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - P.Chandrasekharan

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                  - Copy of agreement

Ext.A2                  - Copy of CD and related documents

List of witness for the opposite parties – NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties – NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                    PRESIDENT