By. Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

            2.  Facts of the complaint in brief:- 

                 The Complainant had entrusted the interior work of his house on an oral contract to the Opposite Party.  As per the terms of contract it was agreed by the Opposite Party to complete the interior works before 30.06.2018 for which the consideration fixed by the Opposite Party and the Complainant was Rs.3,00,000/-.  The Opposite Party had started the work and had accepted Rs.3,00,000/- in total in several instalments.  But the Opposite Party failed to complete the work on or after 30.06.2018.  So, the Complainant filed a petition before Sulthan Bathery Police.  A mediation talk was arranged by the police in the presence and leadership of Karunakaran and Vijayan in which a contract was agreed upon and signed by the parties on 19.09.2018.

            3.  As per the contract dated 19.09.2018, the Opposite party had agreed to start the balance of interior work on 21.09.2018 and to complete it before 05.10.2018.  It was also agreed that if the Opposite Party fails to start the work within two days the Complainant was at liberty to complete the work using other workers.  As the Opposite Party had not started the work even after a week, the Complainant completed the work spending Rs.1,60,000/- through and with other workers.  It was also agreed in the contract itself that if the work is done by the Complainant using other workers an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- should be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.  In spite of repeated phone calls, the Opposite Party had neither responded nor completed the work. Consequently the Complainant tried to get the Opposite Party over phone for seeking the cost of work he had not responded.  These are deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party by which the Complainant had to suffer loss and injury for which the Opposite party is responsible.  Pointing out these grievances, the Complainant approached this Commission seeking Rs.3,00,000/- for loss, compensation and cost of this complaint.

            4.  Commission registered the complaint and notice was served upon the Opposite party. The Opposite Party entered appearance and version was filed.  Chief affidavits were filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party.  Ext.A1 was marked from the side of the Complainant and he was examined as PW1 and the Opposite Party was examined as OPW1.

            5. Contents of version in brief:-

              In version, the Opposite Party admits that the interior work was entrusted to him by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party denied all other allegations of the Complainant. The allegations of Complainant are false and are made only for the purpose of a complaint.  Opposite Party says that he is an honest man undertaking quality works at lower rates with responsibility.  In 2018 due to sudden rain and flood the work could not be progressed as expected.  In the meantime one of his workers got injured in the work site.  He was taken to the Medical College Hospital and he could not continue the work afterwards.  Even then the Opposite Party and other workers were doing it to be finished.  In the meantime the Opposite Party and one of his friends, a police constable, came to the work site and directed to discard some work and to do some additional work.  The Opposite Party told them that, if so, the work may not be finished in time.  At that time being angry, the police constable shouted and responded that they would complete the work with others and threatened him to stop the work.  They did not allow the Opposite Party to take back the balance materials of Rs.50,000/-.  Subsequently, the Opposite Party and his friend the police constable threatened the Opposite Party to reach Bathery police and otherwise they told that they would lock the Opposite Party in police cases.  Due to fear and as the wife of the Opposite Party was ill he could not complain anywhere.  The Opposite Party had not agreed to pay Rs.1,28,000/- for completion of the work by the Complainant.  The contract was falsely made threatening the Opposite Party by the Complainant and his friend.    The Complainant has no right to get any relief as prayed for.  Hence he prays before the Commission to dismiss the complaint.

            6.  On perusal of the complaint, version, affidavits, documents marked and the oral evidence adduced by the Complainant and the Opposite Party, the Commission raised the following points for consideration.

            (1) Whether there has been deficiency in service from the part of the

                 Opposite party?.

            (2)  If so, whether the Complainant has the right to get relief as prayed

                  for?

            7. Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the interior work in the house of the Complainant was entrusted to the Opposite party for a consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- as per a mutual agreement between parties.  It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that he could not complete the work within the time as agreed upon.  The Opposite Party contents that the heavy rainfall in 2018 and the injury of one of his workers were the reasons for the non-completion of the work in time.  During argument the Counsel for the Complainant pointed out that the rain and flood should not affect the interior work as the work is done inside the house and in oral evidence, the Opposite Party had deposed that “Hcp ]Wn¡mc\v am{XamWv ]cn¡v ]änbncp¶Xv.  ]cn¡v ]änbXv kw_Ôn¨v NnInÕm tcJIÄ lmPcm¡nbn«nÔ.  So the Commission cannot admit the above contentions of the Opposite Party.  Another allegation of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant and his friend, a police constable, threatened him and directed to discard some works and do some additional works.  But no corroborating evidence is adduced by the Opposite Party to substantiate this allegation.  So his allegation shall not stand.  Moreover, the Opposite Party had not made any police complaint against the Complainant and the police constable who had threatened him.  The Opposite Party denied the fact that he had agreed to pay Rs.1,28,000/- if the balance work was done by the Complainant.  But Ext.A1 reveals that he had agreed to pay Rs.1,28,000/- to the Complainant if the balance work is done by the Complainant with other workers.  It is seen that Ext.A1 is signed by the Complainant, Opposite Party and two witnesses.  In oral evidence the Opposite Party admitted that   “Ext.A1 se H¶pw c­pw t]PpIfnse t]cpw H¸pw FtâXmWv.  AXnse Hcp km£n I®qÀ PnÃbn A¼eI­nbnse lmcnkv BWv H¸n«ncn¡p¶Xv.  AbmÄ R§fpsS \m«nse Hmt«m ss{UhdmWv”.  But the Opposite Party contents that he was threatened by police to do so.  We see that no complaint was filed by the Opposite Party anywhere against such police or Complainant.  Neither the Police Constable nor the witness in the Ext.A1 document were brought before this Commission for taking evidence to establish his contention.   So Ext.A1 document is seen genuine.  Moreover, the Opposite Party in oral evidence has deposed that “]Wn bYmkabw XoÀ¡msX h¶m 1,28,000/- cq] ]cmXn¡mc\v \ÂImsa¶v A1 tcJbnep­v”  So considering the facts in the complaint, version, Ext.A1 and the oral depositions of the both the parties we find that there has been deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Party as he had not completed the interior work in the house of the Complainant as agreed upon.  Therefore, Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.

            8.  Point No.2:-   As Point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant, he is entitled to get the amount as per agreement, compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the complaint.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed

1.  To pay Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Only) which was agreed upon as per the terms of contract dated 19.09.2018.
2. To pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) as compensation for violation of the terms of contract and
3. To pay Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) as cost of this compliant.

The above amounts shall be paid to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order, failing which the Complainant shall have the right to recover the amount from the Opposite Party together with interest @ 8% per annum by due process of law.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19^th day of July 2022.

Date of Filing: 18.12.2018.

                                    PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1.              O. K. Prakasan.                               Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Murugaraj. N. S.                             Self Employed.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.                  Agreement.                                      Dt:19.09.2018

Exhibits for the opposite party:-

                        Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.