Date of filing    :     07-06-2012 

                                                                            Date of order   :    11 -02-2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC.196/2012

                         Dated this, the 11^th     day of   February     2013

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                 : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                          : MEMBER

SMT. K.G.BEENA                            : MEMBER

Rev: Fr.Joshy Abraham,                                           :  Complainant

The Minister,

Holy Trinity Ashram, Kukkumkudalu,

Bela.Po. Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.

(Adv.George John Plamootil, Kasaragod)

The Secretary,                                                           : Opposite party

Kasaragod District Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe Labour Contract Co-operative

Society Ltd, No.C.849, Beloori Building,

Anebagilu, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist.

(Adv.K.Babuchandran, Kasaragod)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            Complainant is a charity institution known by the name ‘Holy Trinity Ashram’.  On 17-01-2011 complainant invited quotation for tarring  a road of a  length of  200 metres  in their property.  The opposite party submitted quotation on 17-02-2011 for the above work and it was confirmed.  The opposite party offered 3 years guarantee on surface and free maintenance. Complainant paid Rs.2,70,000/-  towards the work. But after one month of the completion of the work the entire surface of the road and road protection wall is damaged because of inferior  quality of materials and work.  The opposite party visited the site when the complainant approached him and the opposite party agreed to re-tar the road and executed an agreement to that effect.  But thereafter they did not turn up to re-tar the road. Therefore the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

2.         According to opposite party they tarred the road as per the terms and conditions in the quotation.  Neither the road nor the protection wall has got any damage. The agreement entered between the opposite party and the complainant dated 20-07-2011  is not supported by any valid consideration and hence it is not enforceable in law.  There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Complainant filed affidavit and Exts A1 & A2 marked.  No evidence adduced by opposite party.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.         Ext.A1 is the copy of Quotation for Road Tarring issued by opposite party.  In Ext.A1 it is specifically provided 3 years guarantee for surface and maintenance. Ext.A2 is the copy of the agreement dt. 20-07-2011 executed by  opposite party to the complainant.  In Ext.A2 it is specifically mentioned that since the road became damaged within one month from the date of tarring they will re-tar  the road on or before 31-02-2012, (Though there is no 31^st day to February) It is further stipulated in Ext.A2 that in the event of default on the part of opposite party they will compensate all the loss occurred to the complainant.

5.         The learned counsel for opposite party Sri.Babuchandran contended that the complainant has not taken any steps to appoint an expert to prove that there is damage to the road  tarred by the road.  But the said contention need not to be accepted on the fact that opposite party executed Ext.A2 agreement agreeing to repair/re-tar the road. It is an admission on their part about the defects of the road.  Had there not been any damage to the road then opposite party should not have executed Ext.A2 agreeing to repair/re-tarred the road.

6.         On going through the evidence of PW1 and on appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that opposite party committed  deficiency in service rendered to the complainant. Therefore they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and hardships suffered.

            In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to re-tar the road which has been damaged and also to reconstruct the side protection wall before 30^th May 2013. They shall also provide in extended warranty of another 3 years for the tarred road and the side protection wall.  In the event of inability to carry out the works then they shall refund  Rs.2,70,000/- to the complainant. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 17-01-2011 Quotation for Road Tarring issued by OP.

A2.  Copy of Agreement

PW1. Fr.Joshy Abraham.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Pj/