D.O.F. 12.10.2015
D.O.O.11.04.2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2016.
C.C.No.388/2015
O.K. Venugopal
S/o. Ramunni
‘Anugraha’ : Complainant
Thavakkara
Kannur District
(Rep. by Adv. G.V. Pankajakshan)
T.K. Aneesh
S/o. Raveendran
‘Aayillyam’ : Opposite party
Muthakkala Parambath
Kodiyeri, P.O. Thiruvangad
Kannur – 670 103
O R D E R
Sri. Roy Paul, President
The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for the relief of refund, compensation etc from the opposite party.
The gist of the complaint is that :-
The opposite party approached the complainant in order to repair and strengthen his old (shop rooms) buildings within a specified time. So both of them entered into a written agreement dated 07.07.2014 between them. On that day itself the opposite party received a sum of 30,000 as the first instalment from the complainant which was endorsed in the said agreement also. Another sum of Rs.15,000 also received by the opposite party on 18.09.2014. Since the old building was made of wooden anglares the opposite party has to change the same by replacing iron bars and structures in that place as stated in the agreement. It is also stipulated in the agreement that the said work should be carried out only after obtaining the permission from the municipality as per the law. But the opposite party without the said permission, demolished the roof portion of the building varanda so the municipal officials restrained the complainant from any further works in the building due to the irresponsible acts of the opposite party. The building was situated in a small strip of land. Since the old building demolished from the land, the municipal authorities are unable to grand permission as per the Building Act for the construction or repair of the building, such a situation arose due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. On account of same the complainant suffered much hardships and loss. Hence the complaint for necessary reliefs.
The summons issued to the opposite party returned as intimation given, but he didn’t care either to receive the summons or to appear before the Forum. So the Forum set him exparte.
On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or deriliction of duty
on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the chief affidavit of the complainant in lieu of his chief examination and Exhibits A1 to A4 also marked.
For the sake of convenience issues No.1 and 2 taken together for consideration.
Issues No.1 and 2 :
According to the complainant the opposite party has to comply the terms and conditions of the Ext.A1 agreement reduced into writings. The building was stipulated in a small strip of land in Kannur Muncipality. The repairing works of the building only could have been in accordance with the permissions of the Muncipality. But the opposite party without obtaining such permission from the Municipality demolished the roof portion of the varanda of the building. When the Municipal official visited the place there was no such a varanda for the building hence they restrained the complainant for any further work on that building. Since the land was a very small one, the Municipality has not permitted the complainant to construct new building or to repair the old one. In short, the said land and building become useless and worthless due to the irresponsible acts of the opposite party. The complainant relied on Exhibits A1 to A4 documents to substantiate his case. The opposite party has received a sum of Rs.45,000 also from the complainant for the proposed work in Ext.A1. According to him he has lost the rent arrears from his tenants of the said building. The complainant has not produced any document to show the extent of the property. There is no contra or rebuttal evidence from the opposite party since he was set exparte. Under the above circumstance, we the Forum hold that there is deficiency of service and deriliction of duty on the part of opposite party. Hence the issue No.1 found against the opposite party and answered accordingly.
Regarding the issue No.2 as discussed above the complainant suffered much hardships and injury due to deficient act of the opposite party. So the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained to him. It is true that as per the evidence, the complainant has restrained from any further connection in the plot. But the said land is still in existence under the title and possession of the complainant. Under the above circumstance we have assessed the loss and agony sustained to him to the tune of Rs.1,00,000. So the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation along with the amount of Rs.45,000 received from him with a cost of Rs.2000. The issue No.2 also answered accordingly.
In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to repay the sum of Rs.45000 (Rupees Forty five thousand only) along with Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation and Rs.2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order and the said sum of Rs.145000 will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2016.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of Agreement dated 07.07.2014.
A2. Receipt dated 18.09.2014.
A3. Copy of notice dated 23.02.2015.
A4. Returned notice as not received – regd post.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
