Kerala

Kannur

CC/307/2010

Dr. Baby Varghese, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SS Rajeev - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2011

ORDER


CDRF,KannurCDRF,Kannur
CC NO. 307 Of 2010
1. Dr. Baby Varghese, Suvas Gardens, Pulimparamba, Thaliparamba, 670141Kannur Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. SS RajeevSoft Touch, Pradeepthi Complex, ChettipeedikaKannur Kerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P ,MemberHONORABLE JESSY.M.D ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 26 May 2011
JUDGEMENT

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.

             DOF.27.12.2010

DOO.26.5.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

 

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy              : Member

 

Dated this, the 26th day of  May   2011

 

CC.307/2010

Dr.Baby Varghese,

Suvas Gardens, Pulimparamba,

Taliparamba                                                  Complainant

 

 

S.S.Rajeev

‘Soft Touch’,

Pradeepthi Complex,

Chettipeedika.                                             Opposite parties   

                                

                                                  

  

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to return `32,000 with 12% interest along with `60,000 as compensation.

          The case of the complainant in brief is  that the opposite party had  carried out the water proofing and antifungal treatment to his house at Pulimparamba in 2009 and received  `32000 towards his  fee from the complainant. He offered a service warranty of 5 years and product durability of 12 years. Moreover the opposite party assured that  all cracks on the slab will be permanently cured and hence no leaking occur, a special antifungal treatment is given and hence there will be no fungus afterwards and offered follow up service. But contrary to this offer all the cracks are still leaking and started fungissing within a  week time on wet surface and nothing was done as follow up service. The complainant had issued a notice during 2010, but the opposite party has not heeded to the words. More over in consultation with experts he understood that the opposite party had cheated him by using improper technology, ineffective material with deficient service. Due to this act of opposite party he has suffered both mental and physical sufferings and financial loss. So the complainant is entitled to receive `32000 given to the opposite party as his fees and also a compensation of `60000 for the mental, physical and financial sufferings. Hence this complaint.

          Upon receiving the complaint forum issued notice to opposite party but it was returned. The notice was served through substitute service and due to his absence the opposite party was called absent and set exparte later on.

          The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Exts.A1 to A6 were produced. The documents are  visiting card, invoice cum warranty, copy of notice  issued to the opposite party by the complainant, consignment receipt issued by professional couriers, Delivery  run sheet, receipt from Sudinam daily etc. The complaint along with affidavit and Exts.A2 invoice cum warranty certificate shows that the complainant had entrusted the opposite party for doing leak proof work with 5 years warranty and the opposite party received `32000 for doing the same. The complainant contended that the leakage proofing work and antifungal work became defective within a few days itself and the opposite party has not rectified the same even though sufficient notice was issued to the opposite party for rectifying the defect. There is no contra evidence before us and hence we hold the view that the work done by opposite party is defective and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party for which he is liable to return the above said amount of `32000 received by the opposite party from the complainant along with a cost of `500 and order passed accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return `32000 (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand only) received by him towards fee along with `500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

 

                             Sd/-                    Sd/-                   Sd/-     

         

President              Member                Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1. Identity card issued by OP

A2.  Invoice dt.28.11.09 issued by OP

A3.  Copy of the letter dt.12.11.10 issued to OP

A4.  Receipt issued by Professional couriers

A5.  Copy of delivery sheet dt.19.11.10 of Professional couriers

A6. Cash Bill dt.7.2.11 issued from Sudinam daily.

 

 Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

 

Witness examined for  either side: Nil                                             

                           /forwarded by order/

 

 

 

                   Senior Superintendent

 

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.

 


[HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member