SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 ,seeking to get an order directing the opposite party to return Rs.125000/- received from the complainant for work together with Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
In brief of the facts of the case are that the complainant and the OP entered a contract for ACP work sheet ,work cement board ,ceiling work and chanel painting in 3rd floor of Koofiya cultural centre building in Peringathur. For this purpose an agreement was executed on 12//4/2017. As per the agreement the OP has to complete work within one month , on 8//5/2017 amount fixed for total work is Rs.290,000/- On 12/4/2017 complainant had paid Rs.1,50,000/- and the balance amount has to pay after the completion of work The OP had done very small part of ceiling work After that he had not done the work in complainant’s building . OP had done work of Rs.25,000/- only.The complainant contacted the OP several times to complete work of that building . On 26/8/2017 complainant sent a lawyer notice to OP asking to complete work and pay compensation. But he neither sent reply nor completed the work. The default and imperfect service of OP , complainant suffered a lot. Hence the complaint
OP filed version denying the allegations raised by the complainant against him. OP admitted the engagement of work for ACP, sheet work, ceiling work, channel painting as entrusted by the complainant. But the OP denied the execution of agreement between him and complainant as alleged by the complainant and also receiving of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant for the work. He also denied that as per the agreement there was balance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which will be paid on completion of the work. OP further denied the allegation of the complainant that he had done work of Rs.25,000/- only.
OP contended that he had completed about 80% of work , then complainant suggested to change design of ACP sheet and also to do. ACP sheet work in the ground floor. On knowing the extra expense to be incurred, complainant reluctant to continue the work. Hence the further work became stopped. OP submitted that there was no deficiency ion service or negligence on his part in doing the work which was entrusted to him by the complainant. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. He has been examined as PW1 and marked the documents as Exts.A1 to A3 and the expert report Ext.C1. Ext.A1 is the agreement executed by the complainant and OP. OP contended that he had not signed in Ext.A1 agreement. On perusal of the signature as shown in Ext.A1, it is similar to the signature of the OP, in his vakalath. Only difference is in the initial portion T.K, it is written as T.T. That can be considered as clerical mistake. Moreover OP has not cross examined PW1 and also not entered into the box for giving evidence. Mere allegation raised in the version cannot be taken into consideration without any cogent evidence. Hence Ext.A1 can be considered as the agreement executed between complainant and OP in relation to entrust the work as stated in the complaint and also payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by complainant to OP on 12/4/2017 and the balance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- will be paid on the completion of the work. It also shows that the work shall be completed within 8/5/2017.
Complainant alleged that OP has done the work only for Rs.25,000/- after receiving Rs.1,50,000/- from him. For proving the said allegation, complainant has taken steps to appoint an expert . Expert after giving information to both parties inspected the site and filed report marked as Ext.C1.. In Ext.C1 the expert has reported that the OP had done work for Rs.48,000/-. In the report the expert has not mentioned that the work done by OP is defective or done with low quality sheet. Hence through Exts.A1&Ext.C1, it is evident that complainant has paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the OP on 12/4/2017 for the sheet work but OP had done work only for an amount of Rs.48,000/-. Since OP has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his contentions in the version, we are constrained to believe Exts.A1&Ext.C1 . Through Exts.A1&C1 complainant has proved his allegation against OP. Ext.A2 is the legal notice. Ext.A3 is its acknowledgment. Here also we can reveal that though OP had received legal notice, OP had not sent even a reply to Ext.A2 notice. So from the available evidence we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence OP is liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.102000/-(Rs.1,50,000-48,000) with interest @4% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant and also Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Opposite party shall pay the amount within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the awarded amount Rs.102000+25,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Complainant is at liberty to file execution application before the commission as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1- Agreement
A2-copy of lawyer notice
A3-Acknowledgment card
C1- Expert report.
PW1-Abdul Latheef.P.K- complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
