BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 23/2010 Filed on 25.01.2010

Dated : 31.08.2010

Complainant:

J. Omana, (Retd. Headmistress), Sivananda Vilasam, Kedakulam, Elakamon P.O, (via) Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties :

1. V.C. Prasad, Proprietor, Well Wish Engineering Works, Puthenkulam, Puthenkulam P.O, Paravoor, Kollam.

    

   (By adv. Manju Prasad)

    

2. Swamidasan, Patyarathu Veedu, Puthenkulam P.O, Puthenkulam, Paravoor, Kollam.

This O.P having been heard on 30.07.2010, the Forum on 31.08.2010 delivered the following :

ORDER

SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER

This complaint has been filed by Smt. J. Omana, Retd. Headmistress, against the Proprietor of 'Well Wish Engineering Works' and one Swamidasan alleging as follows: The opposite party had constructed a sheet roof on the terrace of the house of the complainant. Instead of the prevailing cost of Rs. 75,000/-, the opposite party collected Rs. 1,10,000/-. An excess amount of Rs. 35,000/- was received in the presence of the 2^nd opposite party who is the relative of 1^st opposite party. The complainant had filed a complaint before the Hon'ble Women's Commission but the same was returned with a direction to file it before Consumer Forum. Hence this complaint for refund of excess amount collected along with interest, cost and compensation.

The 1^st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That the complainant along with the 2^nd opposite party approached the 1^st opposite party for entrusting the work of sheet roofing in the complainant's house and after examining the place and measuring the same an agreement was entered into between the parties for an agreed amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- including the materials and labour charge. Accordingly Rs. 55,000/- was received towards advance amount and the work was finished within the time agreed. After the completion of the work, when the 1^st opposite party demanded the balance amount, the complainant was unwilling to make the balance payment as per the agreement. Finally, complainant and 1^st opposite party in the presence of 2^nd opposite party reached at a settlement for an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/-, out of which complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and for the balance Rs. 5,000/- the 1^st opposite party had to approach the complainant several times. That the complainant has not paid the entire amount as per the agreement though the opposite party had completed the work as agreed. That this opposite party has not collected any extra amount from the complainant. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

The 2^nd opposite party has filed version contending that the complainant has no dealings with the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant has not availed any service from this opposite party by paying any consideration. That the complainant is a distant relative of the 2^nd opposite party and that the 2^nd opposite party has no relation with the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party has no knowledge regarding the agreement entered into between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. That it is true that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are natives and as a relative the complainant had enquired with the 2^nd opposite party regarding the 1^st opposite party's work and accordingly the 2^nd opposite party had recommended to entrust the work to the 1^st opposite party. Thereafter, this opposite party has no knowledge regarding the work or agreement entered into between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party. If at all there is any deficiency in service, the 1^st opposite party alone is liable for the same. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against this opposite party with compensatory costs.

Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Ext. P1. 1^st opposite party has been examined as DW1.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

Points (i) & (ii):- Ext. P1 is the agreement dated 04.10.2008 wherein the 1^st opposite party has agreed to complete the work for Rs. 1,10,000/-, out of which the 1^st opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 55,000/-. The case of the complainant is that, the 1^st opposite party has collected an excess amount of Rs. 35,000/- from her. As per Ext. P1, both parties have agreed for an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The complainant has no case that, initially, the 1^st opposite party had agreed to complete the work at Rs. 75,000/- and later it has been increased. From Ext. P1 it is evident that the agreement for work was for Rs. 1,10,000/-. The opposite party as per Ext. P1 has agreed to complete the work for Rs. 1,10,000/-, out of which he has received Rs. 55,000/- accordingly for the work, in advance. Now the complainant alleges that excess amount has been collected and the ordinary cost for the said work would be only Rs. 75,000/-. For reaching a conclusion that there is a misrepresentation regarding the price obtaining in the market, the product should be the same or like products. The complainant has not made out a case or has failed to establish that excess amount has been collected from her for the said work and has miserably failed to prove that the agreed amount made by the opposite party to the complainant was excess in respect of the same work by others. Furthermore, this is a clear case of question of pricing which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum.

In the above circumstance, it is found that there is no deficiency in service established on the part of the opposite parties by the complainant and hence the complaint is of no merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. The complainant is at liberty to approach any other authority for redressal of grievance if any.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 23/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - J. Omana

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Agreement dated 04.10.2008

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

DW1 - Prasad V.C

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb