By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to to get back Rs.40,000/- already given to the opposite party to lay new interlock tiles and to pay cost and compensation for the deficiency of service.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant entrusted the interlocking work of his front yard of his newly built house to opposite party at the rate of Rs.65/square feet. After the completion of work opposite party received Rs.40,000/- and a cheque for Rs.25,000/-. Immediately after, the laid tiles started breaking. Complainant informed this to opposite party and demanded to replace the broken tiles. But instead of replacing the tiles, opposite party filed a case before JFCM-1 Sulthan Bathery against this complainant. Hence filed this complaint to get back Rs.40,000/- already given to the opposite party or to replace the broken interlocking tiles with compensation and cost of the proceedings.
3. Notice served to opposite party, he appeared and filed version stating that, No specific year or date mentioned in the petition that when the cause of action arouse. Opposite party admitted the interlocking work and stated that he laid down 600 square feets of new interlocking tiles to complainant's front yard as agreed by both parties, this opposite party refixed the old interlocking tiles to backyard using his labour and supporting materials. For all the expenses both parties were agreed the cost of Rs.45,000/-. Out of which Rs.20,000/- was directly paid to the opposite party by the complainant. For the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- complainant had given a cheque for Rs.25,000/-. The opposite party denied the allegation about the defect of the interlocking tiles and he admitted the institution of criminal case. The opposite party filed criminal case against the complainant at JFCM-1 Sulthan Bathery. The opposite party further stated that he had never received Rs.40,000/- from this complainant and the tiles laid down in the premises of complainant's residence is of good quality and no such cause of action arouse as alleged in the complaint. Complainant filed this complaint to gain unlawfull profit by misusing the Consumer Protection Act. Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and affidavit this Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- Complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1. On a petition filed by the complainant an Expert Commissioner appointed by this Forum and filed report. The Report is marked as Ext.C1. No other documents produced by the complainant to prove his case. Opposite party filed affidavit and examined, no documents produced by both parties other than Commissioner's Report. In Ext.C1 Commissioner stated that “on visual inspection it is noticed that the tiles used are of good quality and have sufficient strength comparing to the tiles available in the market. Very few tiles found not withstand the wearing and top grip found wearied off. The detailed information regarding the quality and strength could be available only through laboratory test. As the tiles are not polished after lying, the wearing after one and half year may be more and this has affected the appearance”. From the evidences and submission this Forum finds that there is no material evidence to show the specification of work and payment details. Mere oral submission is not sufficient to prove the case. Whether there is any deficiency caused from the part of opposite party is depends upon the conditions based on the payment. Here the pendency of criminal case against this complainant by opposite party under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is admitted by both the parties. Both parties agreed that there is no written agreement for work and payment. Complainant himself filed I.A.342/2014 to takeout an Expert Commissioner. Commissioner reported that during inspection at the site no damaged tiles were noticed. The complainant informed that the damaged tiles were replaced by him. Relaying on Commissioner Report this Forum could not find any deficiency on the part of opposite party. No document is produced to prove the payments. For the reasons stated herein above, we find no merits in the complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed and complainant is directed to pay compensatory cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) to the opposite party within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of June 2015.
Date of Filing:16.07.2014. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Noushad. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
OPW1. Wilson. Business.
Exhibits for the complainant:
C1. Commissioner Report. Dt:19.01.2015
Exhibits for the opposite party:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
