O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> The case of the petition is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is a widower. The petitioner on advice of the second opposite party entrusted the construction of her house to the first opposite party. The petitioner states that the agreement entered between the petitioner and the first opposite party is that the 1st opposite party had agreed to the petitioner to construct a house having 2 rooms and a latrine for an amount of Rs. 38,000/-. The petitioner gave the said amount of Rs. 38,000/- in two instalments of Rs. 19,000/- each. According to the petitioner the first opposite party has not constructed the house as agreed. She stated that the first opposite party constructed a house for only an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The entire construction was not<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> done as agreed. So, the petitioner states that act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service so she claims compensation in the tune of Rs. 30,500/- from the opposite parties.<br /> The first and second opposite party's entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party there was a written agreement between the petitioner and the first opposite party. The original of the agreement according to them is hand over to the petitioner and the opposite party contented that the entire construction cost of the building was morethan Rs. 38,000/- in their version the details of the cost incurred by them is mentioned. The opposite party contented that the entire construction was done as per the terms of the agreement and no claim of the petitioner is sustainable so, they pray for dismissal of the petition with there costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 document.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The main contention of the petitioner is that the opposite party has not constructed the building as per the agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove the alleged agreement. The opposite party has a definite case that there was a written agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party and the entire amount was given along with the construction cost the said <br /> -3-<br /> facts are mentioned in the said agreement. The petitioner has not denied thesaid contentions of the opposite party in their proof affidavit. The opposite party has produced a rough calculation with regard to the construction of the building their version. So, the petitioner has a duty to produce the agreement to prove transaction between the parties. Further more the petitioner has not taken any expert evidence to prove his case with regard to the poor quality and poor constructions. So, we are of the opinion that no deficiency can be attributed against the opposite parties. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. No cost is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2008.