D.o.F:19/5/06

D.o.O:11/12/08

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD

                                                     CC.NO.74/06 

                             Dated this, the 11^th day  of December 2008

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                       : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                  : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI       : MEMBER

M.A.Abdul Rahiman,

S/o Antony, R/at Nabeesa Quarters,

Muttathody PO, vidyanagar,Kasaragod.          : Complainant

(Adv. Subhash Boz,Kasaragod)

V.K.Vijayan, Proprietor,

V.K.Engineering Works,

 Near D.I.Office, Industrial Estate,                : Opposite party

Vidyanagar,Kasaragod.

(Adv.Sreekanth Shetty,Kasaragod.)     

                                                                ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT  

        Complaint is against the defective construction of handle to the staircase  of the house of the complainant by opposite party.  According to the complainant, the handles to the staircase constructed in his house by the opposite party  is not as per the contract entered between them.  As per the terms of contract, the opposite party has to use iron pipe having 1 ¼  inch diameter on either side.  But the opposite party has used only 1”inch pipe.  Further the handle is affixed in a lower height than required therefore the person who stepping the staircase has to bend to hold the handle.  Hence  the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

2.     According to opposite party, complainant was his friend and they were jointly taking the contract works of aluminum fabrication and iron, steel welding works etc.  Upon this friendship, complainant entrusted construction of the said handle work to him.  The cost of  labour   was to  Rs.1500/- on completion of the work, but the complainant did not pay the amount.  So there was a bickering  between them and a complaint was lodged before the police against opposite party but  the police directed  complainant to pay the labour charges to the opposite party but he did not pay.  Thereafter, complainant filed this false complaint.  There was no agreement  dtd.13/5/06 and  an agreement  is concocted in the letter head of the opposite party.  He was neither negligent  nor shown any deficiency in service towards the labour work undertaken in respect of handle work to the staircase of the complainant’s  house.  Hence opposite party prays for a dismissal of the complaint.

3.   Complainant examined  as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked.  Opposite party rendered evidence as DW1   and Exts.B1& B2 marked.  An Expert commissioner who examined the disputed handle and staircase constructed in the house of the  complainant filed  the report that is marked as Ext.C1.  Both parties heard and documents perused.                         

4.    On going  through  the facts, circumstances and evidence it is seen that the dispute is originated only when the opposite party claimed his  balance contract amount  of Rs.1500/-.  Till that time the complainant had no complaint  about the nature of work done by  the opposite party.  It is also come out in evidence that nearly two weeks are taken by opposite party to complete the work.  It is brought in evidence that the complainant had experience in the work of aluminum fabrication.  Naturally, he could have find the defects if any than any one at the beginning  of the work of hand rail.  But he deposed that he had paid the balance after completion of the work entrusted with opposite party.  If that be so, he had no complaint in the  erection of  the handrail work done by opposite party.

5.    Moreover, what was the height purported for handrail  of the staircase to be constructed in  nowhere mentioned  in Ext.A1.  The commissioners report also very vague  to reach  a conclusion.   With respect to the  diameter of the  G.I. pipe,  it is pertinent to note that the complainant  had not raised any objection  till the work is completed.  At the same time, it is the case of  opposite party that the  materials are purchased by the complainant and  erection work alone is executed   by him.  In these circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

                 The complaint accordingly fails and dismissed without cost.

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1-13/5/06- receipt

B1&B2- Sketch marks of work

C1-  13/8/08-Commission report

PW1- M.A.abdulrahiman- complainant

DW1-Vijayan- opposite party

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

eva/