D.O.F - 29-09-2012
D.O.O -19-01-2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 19th day of January , 2015
CC.287/2012
Dr.M.K. Pareed Pillay,
S/o. M.K.Kadar Pillay,
Brick Cottage,
Thottada,
Kannur-7.
(Rep. by Adv.R.P. Remesan) : Complainant
V.Gangadharan,
The Oasis Water Proofing
Solutions Paints & Coatings, : Opposite party
National High Way,
Taliparamba,
Kannur (Dist.)
(Rep. by Adv. T. Dileep Kumar)
O R D E R
Sri. Roy Paul, President
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party for the relief of refund of Rs.60,000 and for Rs. 25,000 as cost and damages. The complainants case in brief is that: In the month of April 2011 the complainant contacted the opposite party to solve the minor leakage on the roof of his residence. After discussion and inspection the opposite party made the complainant to believe that the leakage will be stopped forever by applying Nano Water proofing paint and assured that it will give total solution for leakage and he offered 5 years warranty for the work for a total cost of Rs.60,000. Later the opposite party completed his works and received a sum of Rs.60,000 from the complainant in two installments. But during the rainy season in 2011 leakage appeared. Through the opposite party carried out the rectification works on several occasion on the basis of complaints made before him, the leakage could not be prevented rather the rate of leakage increased. Hence the complaint.
After receipt of the complaint on file, summons were issued to both parties. The opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed their version contenting that he received only Rs.30,000 from the complainant towards the repairing charges and he further stated that before the work he inspected the surface of the building roof and found that the R.C.C. slab lesser thickness than ordinary since it is constructed as per the style promoted by Nirmithi Kendra. So he informed the complainant about the chances of failure in the work, but as per the request of the complaint he carried out the work without assuring the success of the work. He pleaded that he has mistakenly issued the warranty card on 11-04-2011 to the complainant. He further contented that as the successfulness of the work was doubtful he received only Rs.30,000 from the complainant. Thereafter on several occasions as per the request of the complainant he carried out rectification works for leakage, free of cost and expressed about the bad condition of the R.C.C. slab etc. Hence he is not liable to pay the amount demanded in the complaint.
On the basis of the above pleadings on both sides the following issues were framed.
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair practice in
the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what about the relief and cost?
After necessary steps the case posted for the evidence of complainant. The complainant filed chief affidavit and case posted for the cross examination of complainant by the opposite party. Though ample opportunities were given, the opposite party failed to cross examine the complaint. Hence the evidence of complainant recorded as PW1 and Ext. A1 and A2 marked, thereafter the case posted for the evidence of opposite party. Even though several chances were obtained by the opposite party for his evidence he absolutely failed to adduce any evidence. The opposite party also failed to argue the case. Hence the case taken for orders after hearing the complainant.
The complainant adduced evidence as PW1 to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint. Ext.A1 and A2 also shown that the opposite party carried out the leak proofing work with warranty of five years. In the version filed by the opposite party it is admitted that he has carried out the work, received a sum of Rs.30,000 from the complainant and issued the Ext. A2 warranty card. He further admitted that after the work, also there is leakage problems to the R.C.C. slab. The other averments in the version filed by the opposite party is still remained as unproved. No rebuttal evidence from the side of opposite party either through cross examination of PW1 or though evidence on the side of him. Under the above circumstance we have no hesitation to found that there is deficiency of service and unfair practice in the part of the opposite party. Hence the issue No. 1 found infavour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Since the issue No.1 found infavour of the complainant, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint. The opposite party is bound to repay the sum received from the complainant towards the charges for the leak proofing work and also liable to pay a reasonable compensation and cost of the proceedings to the complainant. So the issue No.2 answered in favour of complainant.
In the result the complaint is allowed the opposite party is directed to refund Rs.60,000(Rupees sixty thousand only) received from the complainant with Rs.3,000(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000(Rupees two thousand only) as cost to the complainant within 30days of receipt this order, failing which the amount Rs.60,000(Rupees sixty thousand only) will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. The complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provision of the Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the day of 19th January, 2015
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. Copy of lawyer notice dated 10-07-2012
A2. Warranty Card
Exhibits for the opposite parties:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite parties:
Nil
/Forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
