Complaint filed on: 25.07.2014
Complaint Disposed on:21.01.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.84/2014
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Sri. N.G.Mahesh
S/o N.A.Gopala Gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o Veerabhadreshwara Estate,
Mathikatte, Banakal Hobli,
Mudigere Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. H.M.Raghunath, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Proprietor,
Govardhana Construction
Supporters, Adyar Dota,
Sathyanugrapha House,
Adyar Post & Village,
Mangalore.
2. M/s Zodex Industries,
25-a, Gandhi Oil Mill Compound,
Gorva, Vodadara-390 016.
(OP-1 By Sri/Smt. V.T.Thomas, Advocate)
(OP-2 – Ex-parte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service in not preventing the water leakage of the water proofing to the house of the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos. 1 & 2 to refund an amount of Rs.1,39,425/- which was paid towards water proofing work along with a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a resident of Mathikatte Village in a RCC terrace residential house and there was a water seepage during the rainy season in the terrace of the house. Such being the case, the OP himself approached the complainant by saying that he is a specialist in water proofing work of RCC terrace and promised to stop the seepage of the terrace. Believing the words of the OP No.1 the complainant handed over the work of water proofing to the terrace of the house of the complainant. Accordingly the OP has issued a quotation on 02.03.2013 to the tune of Rs.1,39,425/- and took the work of water proofing. At the time of taking the work, there were no cracks present in the terrace. After verifying the terrace, the OP agreed to do water proffing work. Accordingly, he completed the work of water proofing and after finishing the said water proofing, the OP had provided five years service warranty and also promised that there will not be water seepage or leakage in the terrace at the time of rainy season. After completion of the work had paid the entire amount to OP and the OP has issued a bill to that respect on 08.04.2013.
The complainant further submitted that after completion of the water proofing work, the complainant noticed that the water seepage is not stopped, instead of that the water seepage was increased. Immediately he approached the OP and complained with respect to the water seepage in the month of January – 2014. On 02.02.2014 the OP visited the house of the complainant and provided a service. Even in spite of service, the seepage was not stopped. Instead of that, the seepage was increased. Again, the complainant has requested the OP to stop the leakage, but the OP had not provided any good service to the complainant. Hence, the complainant requested the OP to return the amount paid towards the water proofing work. The OP has not done the work properly and better good service. His intention is only to earn the profit. He has no Idea and experience with respect to the water proofing work and in spite of that the OP without any due care and caution has done the water proofing work which resulted in seepage of water more.
The complainant further submitted that due to water seepage the complainant suffered inconvenience and interior of the building such as paint of the wall, Almera, wardrobes are damaged due to the said increasing in the seepage and complainant has suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. In spite of five years service warranty, the OP has not made any attempt to stop water seepage in the terrace. Hence, the OP rendered deficiency in service in not providing good service to the complainant for which the complainant issued a legal notice dated: 09/06/201 and called upon the OP to refund the amount paid towards water proofing work. Instead of refund of the said amount, the OP replied untenable on 11.06.2014. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint and prays for refund of the amount of Rs.1,39,425/- which was paid towards water proofing work along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice the OP No.1 appeared through his counsel. The OP No.2 failed to appear in spite of receipt of notice. Hence, OP No.2 placed Ex-parte.
The OP No.1 in his version has contended that this OP has done the water proofing work of RCC terrace of complainant’s house on 07/04/2013 and 08/04/2013. The said house is more than 40 years house. Earlier tiles were covered over the terrace roof of the house to prevent leakage of rain water. The quality of work of terrace roof of the house was very low and poor and before commencement of the water proofing work, the workers of the complainant have removed the tiles covered to the terrace roof by hitting and causing damages to the concrete roof and there were big holes and cracks on the roof. Further on the roof the iron rods are visible before commencement of the work by this OP. They have removed all the dart from the roof through vacuum air cleaner. Thereafter the cement plastering work was done to the surface of the concrete roof and before commencement of the application of chemicals, the condition of the roof was tested and tapping hollow sound was coming out and it indicates that the roof is in a damaged condition. After noticing the worst condition of the damaged roof, this OP has informed the complainant that even though water proofing is done to such a damaged roof, the said work will not give good result, for which the complainant has persuaded the OP and insisted this OP to proceed with the water proofing work. Accordingly, this OP had carried out the water proofing work.
The OP further contended that the surface of the RCC terrace was structurally sound is not correct. This OP has applied best quality chemicals for water proofing work and after finishing the said water proofing work, the complainant approached this OP after one year and informed about the leakage during rainy season and requested to do free service. At that time, this OP has informed the complainant that no purpose will be served by again attending to water proofing work to such damaged concrete roof. Even then the OP had carried out the free service work and even in spite of the said work, the leakage had not stopped and complainant again complained with respect to the leakage in the roof.
The OP further contended that the complainant had constructed additional room attached to the main building since the concrete was put separately through the room was attached to the old building, there was heavy leakage and cracks were present in between the old building and the new room and this OP also noticed that the complainant has used poor quality filter sand for the plastering work on the concrete roof and the same was informed to the complainant about the usage of law quality of filter sand. But the complainant had not cared about the information and insisted this OP to do water proofing work. It is also noticed that the curing was not done properly during the time of concrete and plastering of the roof. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP.
The OP further contended that this OP has used Zycosil+Penetrative Waterproffing of Zydex Industries, Vadhodra is used for water proofing of the building and they have given a good service to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P5. The OP-1 also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R6.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted the water proofing work to the roof of his house to OP No.1, for which the OP No.1 has charged Rs.1,39,425/- and water proofing was done. After completion of the water proofing work the complainant noticed that there was a leakage in the roof. Immediately he complained to the OP, for which the OP had provided a service. Even after service also, the complainant noticed the leakage in the roof. Again, he complained to the OP, but OP has not responded properly. Hence, the complainant alleges that the OP had not stopped the leakage in spite of receiving the entire amount towards water proofing work and also prays to refund the said amount from OP along with compensation as prayed above.
9. On contrary, the OP had taken a contention that at the time of taking the work of water proofing, he noticed that the building of the complainant was 40 years old building and the tiles which were lied on the roof were removed by labourers of the complainant and at the time of removing the said tiles, they have damaged the roof and they also noticed that the plastering of the roof was also not done properly and informed the complainant that the water proofing will not be much helpful even after it is applied to the roof of the house. For which the complainant neglecting the information had entrusted the work to this OP. Accordingly, they have done the water proofing work by applying good quality of materials which were supplied by OP No.2 and submits that the leakage was only due to the old terrace and due to improper work of the labourers of the complainant. Hence, submits no deficiency in service on their part and denied to pay the amount paid towards the said water proofing work.
10. The complainant has produced quotation marked as Ex.P1 and P2. Office copy of the legal notice is marked as Ex.P3. Reply given by OP No.1 is marked as Ex.P4 and also produced invoice issued by OP to show that they have provided a free service under warranty is marked as Ex.P5. On going through the said Ex.P5 on 02.02.2014 the OP has provided a service to the complainant after applying the chemicals of water proofing to the terrace of the house of the complainant. Further, we observe that after completion of the work i.e., on 07.04.2013 and 08.04.2013 the OP had issued service warranty card to the complainant and undertaken to provide service for nearly five years. The said service warranty also marked as Ex.R1. Wherein we noticed that the OP No.1 has undertaken to provide regular service to the complainant. But as per Ex.R5 he has provided only one service to the complainant. If the OP had provided regular service after applying the chemicals to the terrace the leakage would have been prevented. But the OP had not done so. We also noticed that neither party have not made any attempt to appoint any expert or court commissioner to inspect the spot with respect to the quality of work done by OP. In the absence of such materials, we cannot say that the Ops have provided poor quality of water proofing work. Anyhow it is admitted by OP that they have only provided one service to the complainant. Hence, the OP is under liability to provide the regular service in order to stop the leakage of the water in the terrace as undertaken under warranty.
11. On the other hand, the complainant has not established that he is eligible for refund of the said amount of Rs.1,39,425/- towards the completion of the water proofing work. It is admitted that the OP had provided water proofing work by applying products such as Zycosil+Penetrative. The complainant also not made any efforts to establish that the materials used by the OP are all low quality. In the absence of such materials we cannot accept the allegations made by the complainant that he is entitled for refund of the said amount. Anyhow the Ops are directed to provide free service up-to five years in order to stop the leakage of the water proof as much as possible. The OP No.1 is also liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- in not providing a regular service to the complainant as provided in the warranty along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/-.
12. The complainant also not established that the products supplied by OP No.2 are all low quality. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against OP No.2. As such for the above said reasons, we answer above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
- The OP No.1 is directed to provide free service up-to five years in order to stop the leakage of the water proof as much as possible.
- The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
- The complaint against OP No.2 is hereby dismissed.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 21st day of January 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Quotation Dated:02.03.2013 issued by OP
Ex.P2 - Invoice Dated:08.04.2014
Ex.P3 - Office Copy of the legal notice Dt:09.06.2014
Ex.P4 - Reply to the said legal notice
Ex.P5 - Original Invoice
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex. R1 - 5 years service warrantee
Ex. R2 - Reply to the legal notice
Ex. R3 - Postal acknowledge
Ex. R4to6 - Three Tax invoice to show what are the materials
Supplied (used)
Ex. R7 - Broacher with respect to Zydex Industries
Dated:21.01.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
