IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 20th day of September, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
C C No. 121/2022 (Filed on 07-06-2022)
Petitioner : Jiju Chacko,
S/o. Chacko,
Chettisseril,
Gandhinagar P.O.
Kottayam
Rep. by his son
Jivin Jiju Chacko,
Chettisseril,
Gandhinagar P.O.
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite party : Tinju Mathew,
S/o. Kunjumon,
Edathil Enterprises,
Vettimukal, Kottayam
Residing at Edathil House,
Vazhappalli, Changanacherry
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant who is working abroad has filed this complaint through his son against the opposite party who undertook the work of laying natural stone and synthetic grass in the 1940 Sq.feet of the complainant’s house yard at the rate of Rs.135/- per sq.ft. The complainant had paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the opposite party. Rs.25000/- was paid on 16-04-20 and the last transaction of Rs.25,000/- was made on 11-09-21. Though the complainant gave paid the full amount as per the demand of the opposite party, he did not lay the synthetic grass at all. Even after the housewarming of the complainant, the opposite party did not complete the said work. The complainant contacted the opposite party several times but he was not ready to complete the work. According to the complainant the opposite party has to complete the work amounting to Rs.50,000/-. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding the completion of the said work but though on receipt of notice the opposite party called the advocate and informed that he would complete the work in a shot span of time, but he did not turn up yet. The non completion of the
work even after receiving the full amount has caused severe mental agony and hardships to the complainant and hence this case is filed for return of Rs,50,000/- ,cost and compensation.
Notice to the opposite party has been duly served but he did not care to appear before the commission or to file version and hence he was set ex-parte.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with 2 documents which were marked as Exhibit A1 and A2.
The points framed are whether the complainant has established the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so what are the reliefs he is entitled to?
Answering the points, we examined the pleadings and evidence carefully. The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party though received Rs.2,60,000/- from the complainant, was not ready to complete the works he had undertaken. The complainant has produced exhibit A1 which is the work contract executed by the opposite party in which the total amount for the stone work is shown as rs.1,95,750/- and that of the land scaping work it is 26,000/- . it is shown that an advance amount of Rs.25,000/- was received on 16-04-2020 and Rs.75,000/- on 21-04-2020.
Though the complainant alleges that the opposite party had received 2,60,000/- no evidence has been produced before us to prove that. Moreover, the complainant avers that there is balance work amounting to Rs.50,000/- is pending and he is entitled to have paid it back. Exhibit A2 is the legal notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party. The complainant has averred in the complaint that the lawyers notice was issued through watsapp. But no screenshot of the same is produced. No evidence to prove that the opposite party has received the notice.
The opposite party has received the notice sent from this Commission but he did not appear. No version has been filed or any evidence to defend the case has been adduced. So the non appearance of the opposite party seems wilful.
Though the complainant alleges that the work was not completed and he had to suffer loss by the inaction of the opposite party, he has not produced any evidence ascertaining the exact amount of work done and the loss occurred. So we are inclined to allow the complaint only in part.
Thus the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- along with Rs.15000/- towards compensation and Rs.1500/- towards cost of litigation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days in default of which the total amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 20th day of September, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of work contract dtd.16-04-2020 issued by Edathil Enterprises
A2 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.28-02-2022
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
