Dated this the 18^th  day of May  2013

 

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

T.N.S.Narayanan

S/o.Nataraja Iyer

Karthika

Opposite Gayathri Theatre

Mettupalayam

Kollengode

Chittur Taluk                              -       Complainant

(By Adv.R.Gangadharan)

V/s

 

Velayudhan

Proprietor

Vignesh Welding Works

Priyadharsini Road

Mettupalayam Street

Palakkad – 1

(By Adv.T.S.Rajeshkumar)                                       -        Opposite party

 

 

 

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

 

The complainant has entered into an agreement on 10/1/12 with opposite party to construct the truss work in front of his house. As per the agreement good quality materials used for constructing works and paint the roof with metal primer. Further the supporting members are made of 5 inch round pipe heavy duty pipe. But the opposite party had used the inferior quality pipes for the construction. At the time of knowing the facts the complainant had enquired about this to opposite party on 3/3/12. Then the opposite party stated that there was a mistake done at the time of taking materials in the godown and defect will be cured within a week. So the complainant had not taken any action. At the time of executing the agreement the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. The total amount paid by the complainant to opposite party was Rs.1,61,000/-. But the opposite party has used the inferior quality materials to construct work and violate the conditions in the agreement. The complainant has demanded to reconstruct the truss work with good quality materials in several times. The original of the agreement was in the custody of opposite party and the carbon copy given to the complainant. Then the complainant sent a notice to opposite party on 8/6/12. But the opposite party has not sent any reply and not completed the work. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to complete the construction work with 5 inch pipe otherwise pay Rs.1,00,000/- for  the cost of construction and pay the cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. There is no agreement between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party admitted that amount received by him and endorsed the same. Before issuing the notice by the complainant, the opposite party had completed the construction work. The opposite party has done the work as per the direction given by the complainant time to time. The balance amount not paid by the complainant for completing the construction. There is no undertaking to do the work as mentioned in the agreement. Moreover the opposite party has denied that he has executed any document by undertaking to do the work with his letter head. It is not correct that the opposite party has used the inferior quality pipes for the construction. The opposite party has denied that he has used the material which has low price. There is no default or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. There is some enmity between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has sold the scrap materials without any permission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed their affidavit. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant. Commission Report marked as Ext.C1 and C1(a). Complainant was examined as PW1. Matter heard.

 

Issues to be considered are

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

2.     If so, what is the relief and cost ?

We perused relevant documents on record. According to the complainant there is an agreement executed between them and marked as Ext.A1. In Ext.A1 agreement was executed in the letter pad of opposite party. But the opposite party has denied the execution of agreement and admitted that the amount received and  endorsed by him. In Ext.A1 the signature of opposite party in both sides of paper is almost same. Moreover the opposite party has not taken steps to prove the agreement not signed by him. At the time of cross examination complainant deposed that he had written the agreement and signature with date is by opposite party. As per Ext.A1 agreement the cost of construction work is Rs.90/- per Sq.feet. Both parties had not produced evidence to show that the total sq.feet of work done by the opposite party. Commissioner reported that since the structure is already erected and painted, it is not possible to assess the grade, thickness of structural sections used. Further commissioner noted that the structural sections relevant here shall be manufactured as per clause 6 of IS 1239. The structure is not yet completed as the sheeting and related works are to be carried out. According to the opposite party some of the truss were done and there is no condition between them. In Ext.A1 mentioned that 5 inch round pipe heavy duty. Commissioner noted that “eight supporting members are made of hollow circular section of diameter (8.9 cm) 3.5 inches”. In the C1 commission report, commissioner stated that “the ends of four square hollow sections were kept unclosed which might lead to its corrosion. The grooves made on the surface of columns for the erection of scaffolding remained distinct. Also the traces of rust present at different parts of the structure might be due to the inferior quality of the painting work”. The commissioner has not mentioned the cost of total construction done by the opposite party. The opposite party has done only the truss work. But the work had not done as per Ext.A1 agreement. In C1 report commissioner noted that the structure is not yet completed. According to the complainant Rs.1,61,000/- paid to opposite party and endorsed in Ext.A1 agreement. As per the agreement 5 inch round pipe used for constructing pillars. As per the commission report the opposite party has not used for 5 inch round pipe. The cost of materials done for the work was not assessed  by the commissioner. In C1 report commissioner stated that 3.5 inches pipes are used for hollow circular sections. The opposite party has not completed construction as per the agreement.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees  Fifteen  thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order, till realization.

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

 

 

 

 

Ext.A1  –   Carbon copy of Agreement between complainant and opposite party dated 10/1/12

Ext.A2  –  Copy of letter sent by the complainant to opposite party along with postal receipt dated 8/6/12

Ext.A3   Postal acknowledgement card

 

 

PW1 – T.N.S.Narayanan

 

 

 Nil

C1 – Biju M.S. Asst.Professor, NSS College of Engg., Palakkad.

 

Rs. 5,000/-  allowed as cost of the proceedings.