DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 31st day of January 2023
C.C. 495/2014
Complainant
P. Ashokan, S/o Ramutty (Late)
Chulliparamba,
Feroke College Post,
Calicut - 673632.
(By Adv. Sri. Radhakrishnan)
Opposite Party
Mohandas, Proprietor,
M/s Mohan Metal Industries,
Karuvanthiruthy Road,
Feroke Post,
Calicut – 673631.
(By Adv. Sri. V. Sivaramakrishnan)
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant had given a work contract to the opposite party for 90 cm door mould work, 3 door window mould work, 3 door mould work and 90 cm concrete door mould fittings. After completion of the work, the opposite party collected an exorbitant and arbitrary amount of Rs. 61, 470/- from him. Later, on enquiry, he came to know that the cost of the aforesaid work would come only around Rs. 21,000/- to Rs. 24,000/-. Various contractors had given the estimate showing the correct amount to the complainant. The opposite party committed unfair trade practice and collected a huge amount from him. The opposite party is liable to return the excess amount of Rs. 37,470/- along with interest. The complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party, which was replied with untenable contentions. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 37,470/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and pain.
3. The opposite party has resisted the complaint by filing written version wherein he has denied all the allegations and claims made against him in the complaint. According to the opposite party, the compliant is not maintainable. He has not collected any excess amount. The quotations produced along with the complaint are concocted documents. The Engineering Association had intervened in the matter and they were convinced that no excess amount was collected, but this was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant had preferred complaint in the police station and before various authorities. The mould work is perfect and the complainant is satisfied with the same. No expert opinion is made available by the complainant. No excess amount was collected by the opposite party. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
(1). Whether there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of any amount from the opposite party? If so, what is the quantum?
(3) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable? If so, what is the quantum?
(4). Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant. RWs 1 and 2 were examined on the side of the opposite party. No document was produced and marked on the side of the opposite party.
6. Brief argument notes were filed by both sides.
7. Points 1 to 3 : These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that for the work entrusted by him, the opposite party had charged exorbitant amount without any basis. The specific allegation is that for the work contract given to the opposite party for 90 cm door mould work, 3 door window mould work, 3 door mould work and 90 cm concrete door mould fittings, the opposite party had collected a total amount of Rs. 61,470/-. According to the complainant, the maximum amount leviable for the above work was Rs. 24,000/- and the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs. 37,470/-. The prayer in the complaint is for refund of the excess amount of Rs. 37,470/- from the opposite party along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered.
8. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. PW2 is the proprietor of Vijaya Industrials, Kozhikode. PW2 has deposed that Ext A8 quotation was given by him.
9. The case advanced by the opposite party is that he had levied only reasonable charge and no exorbitant amount was collected from the complainant for the work. The opposite party has got himself examined as RW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting and reiterating the contentions in the written version. RW2 is running another Engineering Industries and he is an active member in the Kerala Small Scale Industries Association. According to RW2, the matter was settled in the police station on finding that no exorbitant amount was collected by the opposite party.
10. Going by the pleadings and evidence, it can be seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the complainant had given work contract to the opposite party as stated above. The opposite party collected a total amount of Rs. 61,470/- for the work as per Exs A1 to A4 service charge bills. The grievance of the complainant is that the amount collected was excessive and exorbitant and the actual charges for the work comes around Rs. 24,000/- only. In this context, at the very outset, it may be noted that neither any quotation was obtained before giving the work nor was there any agreement/ understanding with regard to the charges. No reliable data is made available before this Commission regarding the actual cost of such work at the relevant time so as to ascertain as to whether any excess amount was collected by the opposite party. It is true that the complainant has produced Exts A5 to A8 quotations issued by various contractors. But those quotations were obtained subsequent to the completion of the work entrusted to the opposite party. PW2, who has given Ext A8 quotation for Rs. 23,000/-, has no case that the amount covered by Exts A1 to A4 is exorbitant or excessive. The person who had purportedly given Exts A5 to A7 quotations are not examined as witnesses by the complainant.
11. There is no proof that the opposite party had charged the complainant’s work exorbitantly without any basis. It is common knowledge that the rate quoted by contractors for the same work will differ. As a prudent man, it was for the complainant to get quotation from the opposite party for the above work or at least there should have been an understanding with regard to the charges payable. However, the complainant has no case that the work was not executed by the opposite party in a satisfactory manner. In the absence of any evidence that any excess amount was collected for the work, no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite party.
12. At the fag end, the complainant has a case that the work was delayed. But such an allegation does not find a place either in the complaint or in Ext A9 lawyer notice. The proof affidavit filed by PW1 is also silent on this aspect. So it is a new case developed at the time of filing the argument note and it cannot be countenanced.
13. To sum up, we find that there is no proof of any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and consequently the complaint must fail. Points found accordingly;
14. Point No.4: In view of the finding on the above points, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 31th day of January, 2023.
Date of Filing: 27/09/2014.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Service charge bill.
Ext. A2 – Service charge bill.
Ext. A3 – Service charge bill.
Ext. A4 – Service charge bill.
Ext. A5 – Quotation issued by Shilpi industries.
Ext. A6 – Quotation issued by Star Engineering Works.
Ext. A8 – Quotation issued by Vijaya Industrials.
Ext. A9 – Copy of the lawyer notice.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil.
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – P. Ashokan
PW2 - Vijayan. P. Menon
Witnesses for the opposite parties
RW1 – Mohandas.
RW2 – V. Arun Chandran.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
