CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.138/11
Wednesday the 30th day November, 2011
Petitioner : S. Rajendra Prasad,
Gurusanthosahm,
Varavila PO, Kalppana,
Vavvakkavu,
Karungappally Tq.
(Adv.Avaneesh V.N)
Vs.
Opposite party : V.R. Prakash,
Kondanattu House,
Challaparambu, Vaikom PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv. K.A.Prasad)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 27/05/11, is as follows:-
Opposite party is doing rubber coating works with guarantee. Petitioner entrusted the work of rubber coating, of roof of the building of the petitioner. As agreed between the parties opposite party completed the rubber coating works of the petitioner. For execution of the work petitioner paid a total consideration of Rs.38,000/-. According to the petitioner after a few months of completion of the work. The rubber coating of the roof became completely damaged. Petitioner intimated the said fact to the opposite party but opposite party has not cured the defects. On 12/1/11 petitioner sent a lawyer’s notice, opposite party has not accepted the notice and was returned ‘unclaimed’. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to rectify the defects caused in the rubber coating or in the alternative he claims refund of Rs.38,000/-. Petitioner claims Rs. 60,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and has not filed any version so, opposite party was set expartee.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner and Ext.A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the rubber coating works done to the roof of petitioner’s building by the opposite party, with an assurance of 8 years guarantee, was completely damaged. On intimation opposite party has not rectified the defects. Copy of notice issued to the opposite party produced is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is an agreement. From Ext.A1 and A2 it can be seen that opposite party agreed 8 years guarantee for the rubber coating done in the roof of petitioner’s building. Ext.A3 is the lawyers notice and A4 is returned lawyer’s notice. In the lack of contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit and the documents filed by the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result opposite party is ordered to refund Rs.38,000/- to the petitioner. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation. Rs. 1000/- is allowed as litigation costs. Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied the award amount will carry 9% interest from date of filing till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Notice
Ext.A2-Agreement dtd 12/2/08
Ext.A3-Copy of lawyer;s notice
Ext.A4-Unclaimed lawyer’s notice.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
