DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 5th day of October 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.175/2009

T. Unnikrishnan

S/o. Angalan

Ashad

Near Venkateswara Colony

Ambikapuram (P.O)

Palakkad - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

Nasar

Limras Engineering Works

Yakkara Road

Thottungal

Palakkad. - Opposite party

(Adv.M. Abdul Kaleel & Renjith Krishna.V)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena. H, President.

Case of the complainant in brief:

Induced by an advertisement published in the Mathrubhumi Daily dated 20/08/2009. Complainant entrusted the work of construction of a car shed with lateral frame work and door attached to the home. The proprietor of opposite party firm visited the site and cost of the work was estimated as Rs.29,000/-. An advance payment of Rs.10,000/- was made on the same day itself by the request of opposite party for purchasing raw materials. Opposite party started the work on the next day and dropped the same for unknown reasons. On 28/08/2009, opposite party again approached the complainant and told that the advance payment was insufficient. Further amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid. Complainant submits that the opposite party never turned up for completing the work. Complainant made several phone calls and also personally visited opposite party requesting to complete the work or else cancel the contract and return the advance payment. There

- 2 -

was no response from the side of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

Notice issued to opposite party returned with endorsement 'not known'. Subsequently complainant furnished the changed address of opposite party. Even though opposite party entered appearance and filed vakalath, no version or affidavit was filed by them. Later at a belated stage when the complaint was taken up for orders an application for receiving version was filed which was allowed on cost. Cost was not paid within the ordered period.

The evidence adduced consists of the affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A2 on the side of the complainant. Opposite party has not filed any affidavit.

The issues for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

The case of the complainant is clearly proved by the affidavit and Exhibit A1 and A2 documents. Payment of Rs.20,000/- is revealed from Exhibit A1 (cash bill/order form). It is stated in the affidavit of the complainant that opposite party never turned up for completing the work even though Rs.20,000/- out of the total estimate of Rs.29,000/- was paid in advance. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence contrary to that one adduced by the complainant. Hence evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.

In view of the above circumstances we are of the view that the act of opposite party in not completing the promised work amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to return Rs.20,000/- to the complainant being the advance payment made together with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

- 3 -

Pronounced in the open court on the 5th day of October 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Date of filing : 22/12/2009

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Copy of cash bill dated 19/08/2009

2. Ext. A2 - Copy of Advertisement published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 20^th August 2009

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

Nil

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings