BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Friday, 28th March 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 39/ 2013
D. Kasim Saheb, S/o D. Pakuruddin Saheb, age 73 years,
House No. 20/7, Akula veedhi, Kadapa – 516 001. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
S. Moulana, Proprietor, Diamound Steel works,
20/206-2, Akula Veedhi, Kadapa – 516 001. ….. Opposite party.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 24-3-2014 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of complainant as in person and Sri T. Nagaraja, Advocate for opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),
1. This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant seeking direction from the opposite party
(i) To pay Rs. 1100/- towards excess payment of steps grill,
(ii) To pay Rs. 2,000/- towards court expenditure and
(iii) To pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony along with interest @ 24% p.a as the Hon’ble forum may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant ordered to the Opposite party to make grill for the steps in his house and the O.P. measured and decided the grill height is 15 fts. The cost of the material Rs. 65 per kg. The complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- towards advance. After a few days the O.P. informed the complainant that the grill is ready. But the complainant not satisfied and simply rejected because it was no relation with order of the complainant.
3. It is further stated that the O.P. given assurance to make another grill and after few days the O.P. informed to the complainant the said grill is ready. But the grill was made with square pipes instead of round pipes which is ordered as drawing given by him. Again the complainant not satisfied the said grill and the opposite party issued grill to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,050/- also stated that the bill was shown Rs. 65X30 = Rs. 1950/- + 980/- Gundu and Rs. 120/- and the same asked to the O.P. and the O.P. stated they used heavy gaze and cost material. Hence, the cost of the grill is increased. The complainant not paid remaining amount of Rs. 1,050/-.
4. The complainant further stated that the O.P. challenged, if there is any shortage of weight or shortage of measurement the O.P. ready to pay Rs. 1,000/-. After that the complainant has taken grill at home and it was measured by him and i.e. 11 ½ feets instead of 15 feet and same was informed to the O.P. by phone the O.P. said he will bring the rods and adjust the same height but the O.P. was not rectified the same. Hence, this complaint filed.
5. The Opposite party filed a counter denying all allegations made by the complainant the O.P. stated that the complainant gave an order to make grill and the O.P. made grill as per order of the complainant but the complainant was not satisfied the said grill. Again the O.P. made another grill and it is also not satisfied by the complainant. The O.P. stated that he get loss of Rs. 2,000/- for first grill and Rs. 2,500/- for 2nd grill. At last the O.P. prepared a grill with pipes and round balls as the request of the complainant and the said grill weight is 30 Kgs @ Rs. 65/- + Rs. 980 +Rs. 120/- totaling amount of Rs. 3,050/-. The complaint paid Rs. 2,000/- towards advance and the O.P. requested the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs. 1,050/-. But the complainant avoid the remaining balance of Rs. 1,050/- and filed this complaint before the Forum and there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P. Hence, he prayed to direct the complainant to pay remaining balance of Rs. 1,050/- and dismiss the complaint with costs.
6. To prove his case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Ex. A1 to A4. There is no documents filed on behalf of the O.P.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him?
iii. To what relief?
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As seen from Ex. A2 an admitted fact that the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as order to the O.P. on 25-3-2013 for make a grill. The contention of the complainant is that the complainant order to the O.P. to make a grill as measured by him and paid Rs. 2,000/- towards advance. After that the O.P. prepared the grill but the complainant is not satisfied the said grill and also stated in his complaint the O.P. assured the complainant that again prepared the another grill. Again the complainant rejected the grill because the said grill was not prepared as per the drawing of complaint as per Ex. A3. At last the O.P. prepared a grill and the complainant alleged that the grill was 11 ½ feet instead of 15 feet the same intimated to the O.P. and he assured that he will adjust the grill. But he did not do so. On the other hand the O.P. stated in his counter that they prepared the grill twice. But the complainant not satisfied and he get loss of Rs. 2,000/- for first time and Rs. 2,500/- for 2nd time. At finally 3rd time prepared a grill weight is 30Kgs @ Rs. 65/- per Kg. The bill was shown Rs. 65X30 = Rs. 1950/- + 980/-Gundu and Rs. 120/- totaling amount of Rs. 3,050/-. The complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- towards advance and complainant to pay remaining balance of Rs. 1,050/-.
9. As per the contention of the complainant and O.P. we are opined that both are not proved their allegations. The complainant alleged that the grill was 11 ½ feet instead of 15 feet which is prepared by the O.P. in this regard the complainant did not proved.
10. And the contention of O.P. the O.P is that the grill prepared by him with heavy gaze and cost material. Hence, the amount increased. It is not proved by the O.P. In this aspect the O.P. did not filed any documentary evidence to prove that they used heavy gaze material. As the above discussion we opined that the complainant did not proved deficiency of service of on the part of O.P. The O.P. did not proved their contention.
11. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 28th March 014
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties: NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Notice issued by the complainant to the respondent, dt. 15-4-2013.
Ex. A2 Estimate receipt issued by the respondent, dt. 25-3-2013.
Ex. A3 Grill rough sketch issued by the respondent.
Ex. A4 Postal receipt dt. 15-4-2013 along with ack. card.
Exhibits marked for Opposite parties: - NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) D. Kasim Saheb, House No. 20/7, Akula veedhi, Kadapa – 516 001.
2) Sri T. Nagaraja, Advocate for opposite party.
B.V.P.
