DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2023

                                                                   Filed on: 20/01/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C NO. 44/2023

COMPLAINANT

Aleyamma Pappachan, Vilyadath House, Udayamperoor, Nadakavu P.O., Ernakulam 682307.

(Rep. by Adv. Jenoba P.S., Leela Nivas, Pullamveliparambil, Pachalam P.O., Kochi 12)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. N.V. Muhammed Ali, Nedungattukudy, Double Post, Okkal, Perumbavoor 683550.
2. K.P. Raju, Kozhithara House, Udayamperoor, Ernakulam.

F I N A L    O R D E R

V. Ramachandran, Member:

Complainant states that she had approached the 1^st opposite party as per the instruction of 2^nd opposite party for the purchase of tiles for paving in the backyard of the house of the complainant. Complainant had given an order to the 1^st opposite party as per the instruction of 2^nd opposite party and paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- for which no bill was issued by the opposite party and complainant had spent altogether an amount of Rs.74,520/- for the tiles and workwhich was noted and given in a sheet of paper by the opposite party.

While started for paving the tile in the backyard it was observed strains in the tile and therefore photographs were taken and sent to the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and stated that this is the sap of some tree and washed his hand and did not bent to make any relief to the complainant. Therefore the complainant approached this Commission seeking for getting relief of return of Rs.48,000/- along with other reliefs.

Even though notice was sent from the Commission, the opposite parties did not turn up and file version and hence they are set ex-parte.

Complainant had produced two documents which is marked as Exbt. A1 and A2. Exbt. A1 is a paper on which some account is noted which is not sealed or there is nothing in it as regarding to the issuance of it from the side of the opposite party. Exbt. A2 is a photograph which also cannot be determine with certainty regarding the authenticity of the alleged purchase of tile in which this specimen is involved. The Commission do not have any evidence except Exbt. A1 which cannot be considered as issued by the opposite party as a bill against the purchase and which cannot be taken as an evidence in this case, and hence the complainant has not proved his case on merit. Hence this complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of November, 2023

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exbt. A1:    Paper on which some account is noted       

Exbt. A2:    Photograph

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 44/2023

Order Date: 29/11/2023