SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

         Complainant filed this complaint  U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986  ,seeking to  get an order directing  the opposite parties to pay  Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for loss damages and mental agony  for the negligence and deficiency in service and a sum of Rs.2,11,360/- being the excess amount received from the complainant with interest.

   In  brief of the facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner  and in possession of 27.44 cents of land comprising in RS No.46/15 of Kayaralam amsom and he  had constructed a residential  house therein. The 1^st OP had  entered in to an agreement  with the complainant to do the electrical and plumbing works of his newly constructed  house by using the materials brought from Dubai  and USA and also with materials locally available. 1^st OP also agreed the labour charges  will be as per the standard rate published by the association for doing all the electrical and plumbing work of the complainant. The 1^st OP  also made believe to the complainant that he has previous experience in doing the work by using the electrical and plumbing materials brought  from abroad.  The entire transactions between the complainant and the 1^st OP has been witnessed by the P.A holder of the complainant. It is also submitted that the 1^st OP  agreed  that all the works finished   within April 2017.  The complainant was in constant communications with 1^st OP and provided detailed work plans and guidance  on every  step.  All the cash payments were made and recorded by the sister’s daughter and  neighbor of the complainant  and made known to him time to time.  It is submitted that  initially  the 1^st OP did the work with reasonable  care and skill.  Thereafter he continued to do all the work  by some inexperienced and incompetent workers and they did the work according to their own convenience, with little or no guidance or supervision  from the 1^st OP and the 1^st OP has not taken any steps to correct his  workers.  According to complainant that the electrical wires were purchased  based on the list given  by the 1^st OP.  The complainant had purchased 50% extra materials than the estimate given by the 1^st OP.  The complainant submits that he came to his house on 29/4/2017 for arranging house warming  function, he shocked  to see that  the  1^st OP has not finished the work as agreed.  Hence the house warming function was adjourned . Therefore the complainant has forced to reshedule the  house warming to 4//6/2017, to the utter shock of  the complainant on 3//6/2017, the 1^st OP along with his workers left the house without completing the work. The complainant  could  see the wires  hanging  from the wall, some of the electrical boxes were exposed with  live wires in them and most of the plugs were not getting  any  power.  All wash basins and sinks were leaking as drain pipes were installed in a  wrong  way.  The tail pipes provided by the  complainant became useless as the inexperienced workers of the 1^st OP cut them  without paying  attention  to connection threads.  All sensitive connection  terminals of USB, HDMI and CAT5e cables were damaged  as they were just pushed outside of the house in the open mud and rain.  The complainant had given sufficient time to the 1^st OP to fix the things he did incorrectly and also to complete the unfinished work.  But the 1^st OP has evaded the complainant by saying one or other reasons.   The complainant also revealed that the quantity of  items used in the house like electrical switches, plugs etc are less than the quantity purchased by  the 1^st OP .  Still there are vacant slots are in the walls as there were not enough plugs to complete the work.  The KSEB supervisor came and inspected the house of the  complainant and he could notice that all the listed plugs and the other power points mentioned in the  application  were not seen installed in the house.  The KSEB officer reduced the total watts from  14,152 to 6500 after inspecting the complete wiring in the house.  Since the application signed by the 2^nd OP, a licensed electrician, stated the power requirement as 14,152 watts, three phase connection was mandated by the KSEB.  Therefore the complainant was forced to  pay the cost of Rs.48,000/- to draw the  three phase electric  line.  It is further submitted that the plumbing and electrical materials were damaged by the act of unqualified workers of the 1^st OP.  Two ceiling lights and 4 mirror lights are mounted not as per the plan.  All vanity mirrors ordered as per the agreed plans will not fit as the mirror lights were mounted at random heights, well below the height noted in the plan.  The complainant had already paid a total sum of Rs.4,46,178 to 1^st OP as demanded by him in various occasions from 22/8/2015 to 3/6/2017.  The total electrical plumbing and miscellaneous labour cost of the 1^st OP is only Rs.1,44,915.  The 1^st OP had purchased the electrical materials for a  total sum of Rs.89,903/-  Therefore the 1^st OP has to refund the excess amount of Rs.2,11,360/- with interest of 12% per annum to the complainant .  The complainant also submits that he had sustained a total  loss of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages and mental agony due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the  OPs.  The complainant has compelled to issue a registered lawyer notice  to 1^st OP but he is  well aware of the contents  of the notice and therefore he refused the same.  Hence this complaint.  

      Notices were sent to the opposite parties through registered post.  After receiving notices both parties jointly filed written  version.  OPs admitted that the complainant is the owner  and in possession of 27.44 cents of land comprising in RS No.46/15 of Kayaralam amsom and he  had constructed a residential  house therein. The 1^st OP had  entered in to an agreement  with the complainant to do the electrical and plumbing works of his newly constructed  house by using the materials brought from Dubai  and USA and also with materials locally available.  The fact that there was no written agreement between the complainant and 1^st OP. It is submitted that 1^st OP was an apprentice  working with one  Mr.Sreeprakash, a B-class Electrical contractor  with the complainant had a verbal agreement, as a result of which  Sreeprakash agreed to undertake and carry out the electrical and plumbing  works of the complainant’s newly constructed house.  However the work came to an abrupt halt with the death of Mr.Sreeprakash, subsequently 1^st OP was subjected to repeated requests and persistent nagging from the complainant to continue the electrical and plumbing work of the  complainant’s  newly constructed house.  1^st OP categorically stated that he would not be able to complete the work on his own, since he lacks the necessary qualification.  1^st OP fully disclosed his limitations to the  complainant, advising  the  latter to search for  a better qualified person to perform  the tasks at hand.  However, the complainant chose  to stick with 1t OP.  1^st OP in turn, introduced the complainant to 2^nd OP, Mr.K.Sunil Kumar, a C-class Electrical contractor and supervisor.  The complainant promised that he would  reduce the  connected load, so that the C class contractor would be able to perform the work.  This is why 2^nd  OP agreed to work  for the complainant.  It is obvious that a person like 1^st OP who made such open disclosure would never claim expertise in  using materials brought from abroad.  The averment that the entire   transactions between the complainant and 1^st OP has been witnessed by the P.A holder of the  complainant is denied. 1^st OP realized that the complainant  did not have knowledge and experience in handling neither the  electrical and plumbing works in India nor in the .U.S.  The directions and instructions issued by the complainant were derived from searches made on the internet and some books.  1^st OP admitted that all the cash payments were made and recorded by the sister’s daughter and  neighbor of the complainant . 1^st OP  denied that the  purchase of  the electrical materials for a  total sum of Rs.89,903/-.  It is submitted that the complainant did arrive with his wife on 29//4/2017 but the  purpose  was not his house  warming.  The complainant had informed 1^st OP that he would visit his  newly constructed house on April 29,2017  and personally purchase the required  switches.  The 1^st OP , in turn  had  informed the complainant that a further period of one month was required after the purchase of switches, to complete the entire  electric and plumbing work.  It was only  after  completing the entire work that was assigned to him by the complainant, that the 1^st OP along with his workers, left the house.  It is submitted that when the  1^st OP and his workers left the complainant’s house , none of the defects were present  as alleged  by complaint.  These defects are a result of the complainant’s activities.  Further averment that the KSEB officer reduced the total watts from  14,152 to 6500 after inspecting the complete wiring in the house is denied.  It is the OP who modified the  application  and reduced the wattage to 6,827 watts, which is within the permissible limit. The averment that the plumbing and electrical materials were damaged by the act  of unqualified workers of the 1^st OP and the complainant had already paid a sum of Rs.4,46,178/- to 1^st OP as demanded by him on several occasions from 22/8/2015 to 3/6/2017 are denied.  It is submitted that 1^st OP had in all fairness and honesty informed  the complainant about the inherent limitation in the qualification of both OPs.  The complainant however expressed that he had no problems with the same and was extremely keen on availing the services of OPs,  It was because of these pleas that OPs agreed to complete the electrical & plumbing work of the complainant’s house.  Ops further stated that  the OPs received any such notice and there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OPs, hence complaint  is liable to be dismissed.

     During the pendency of this case, complainant has filed petition to appoint an Advocate commissioner with the assistance of an expert to inspect the  house of the complainant in dispute and to assess the loss and damages of electrical  and plumbing works and to file a detailed report.  The petition was allowed , Advocate  commissioner and Mr.Radhakrishnan.B, Electrical Inspector, Electrical Inspectorate, Kannur was appointed.  The Advocate commissioner inspected the premises with Expert commissioner, after due notices to the parties and filed  detailed inspection reports of the expert and advocate commissioner.

   Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A4.  He has been subjected to cross-examination for OPs.  On the side of OPs, 1^st OP has filed his chief affidavit and has been examined as DW1, DW1 has  been  cross-examined  for complainant and marked  Exts.A5 to A7.  After that the learned counsels of complainant and 1^st OP have made oral argument and the learned counsel of 2^nd OP filed written argument note.

  We have gone through the records and also considered the submissions of learned counsels of the parties in this case.

       It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is the owner  and in possession of 27.44 cents of land comprising in RS No.46/15 of Kayaralam amsom and had constructed a residential  house therein.

       The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had entrusted 1^st OP to do the electrical and plumbing work of the house in dispute and 1^st OP has not finished the work as agreed.  Hence the house warming function was adjourned three times.  1^st OP entrusted  2^nd OP to submit application to KSEB for electrical service connection.  The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.446178/- to 1^st OP .  But the OP did not finish the work as agreed.  According to complainant, the total electrical, plumbing and miscellaneous labour cost of the 1^st OP is only Rs.144915/-.  1^st OP had purchased the electrical materials for a total sum of Rs.89903/-.  Thus the 1^st OP has to refund the excess amount of Rs.211360/- to the  complainant.  The learned counsel pointed out the points and observations noted by the expert commissioner as well as the Advocate commissioner in Exts.C1&C2 reports.  It is submitted that as per para 2  in Ext.C2 report Mr.K.Sunil Kumar , 2^nd OP holds a C-class electrical contract  license and as per KSE LB Rules , a C class contractor  can undertake and submit  completion report of installations having connected load upto 10KW.  But the connected load of the installation, as per the completion report submitted by the OPs is 14.152KW.  The learned counsel of complainant submitted that it shows the negligence on the part of OPs.  Further submitted that in para 4&5 , the expert commissioner noted that during the inspection it is found that the switch boards and plug points are installed not exactly according to the measurements supplied by the  complainant.  Further during the enquiry it is found that  2 plug points in the entry foyer in the ground floor are not fixed and ends of its wires are stripped and insulated using insulation tape and furled in the switch board box.  Wires of two bulb points nearer to these plug points and  at  accessible height, are hanging from the wall and its ends are insulated using insulation tape.  Besides this, wiring of another plug point  in the central hall is also not seen completed.  A bulb point below the kitchen cabinet is seen connected directly to the mains.

  The learned counsel of complainant further submitted that three phase connection had to be connected due to the negligence of OPs and thus the complainant was compelled to pay additional amount for 3 phase connection.

   Further submitted that in Advocate commission  report, it is reported that the supply is not reaching at some plug points in each room  . As these equipments cannot be connected to KSEBL supply system, separate wiring for 110V equipment is made as per the requirement of the complainant  At present  the transformer to energise this 110V wiring is not seen installed at the site.

   It is contended that , from the Advocate commissioner’s report, it is found that there are defects in the plumbing work as well as  electric work done by the 1^st OP.  Further submitted in the Ext.A6 series letters 1^st OP himself admitted his poor workmanship.  During cross examination also 1^st OP(DW1) admitted the contents in Ext.A6 series letters.

   The learned counsel submitted that from the documents and expert reports, complainant has proved the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of 1^st OP.

   The 1^st plea raised by the learned counsel of 1^st OP is that since there is no deficiency is alleged in the complaint,  this case is not maintainable .  Further submitted as there is no agreement between complainant and 1^st OP this complaint is not maintainable.

   With regard to this point, on perusal of complaint, the complainant alleged poor workmanship and defective works done by the 1^st OP.  Further  though there is no written agreement  between complainant and 1^st OP, 1^st OP has admitted in Ext.A6 series letters that he had engaged in plumping and electric work of the complainant’s house.  Hence from the above discussed fact, this complaint is maintainable as per Consumer Protection Act.

   Next point submitted by the learned counsel is that the complainant could not prove negligence of 1^st OP by expert opinion.  The learned counsel submitted that without expert opinion , the negligence  cannot be find out.

   Here the question to be decided is whether experts opinioned defective work of 1^st OP in Exts.C1&C2 report?

   The learned counsel of 1^st OP pointed out that in Ext.C2 report the expert commissioner, the electrical Inspector, pointed out that a point is connected directly without any switch and that the electricity is passing through the wire and the edge is covered by using insulation tap and laid as idle.  The mentioned 2 plug points is not fixed  form and the hanging wires are also in dangerous.  In a bed room  a bundle of wires are hanging through a pipe. The other sides of the wires thrown outside the house openly in a not usable form and like a scrap item and it is required that by considering the value of article, at least it should be cover it in a manner so as to protect  it from direct sun light and rainfall. 

       In para 6 of Ext.C2 report the Expert observed that during the  inspection it is found that 44 numbers of 6A plug points and 38 Nos of power plugs are installed at the premises and this contribute the major portion of the connected load.  The reason for providing 44 Nos. of 6A plug points and 38 Nos. of power plugs  in a house is not known but definitely it is an unwanted and unnecessary thing.

   Further submitted that in general observation point No.4 the insulation  value of the installation is found very less.  This may be due to anyone or both of the following reasons a) poor workmanship(b) the complainant during the inspection revealed that he had opened some switch boards and made some additions and modifications, including  shifting of switchboard location, by himself.  As he is not competent to do the electrical work this work may affect the insulation value.  Any how the insulation value of the installation is very poor.  Urgent measures is to be taken in improving the insulation value as it may cause accident.

    The learned counsel argued that on analyzing the Ext.C2 report of Independent Electrical Inspector, it can be  seen that the defect happened in the electric work of 1^st OP and necessity for three phase connection had to  be happened cannot be considered as a mistake of 1^st OP which was due to mistake of complainant himself in providing materials brought from abroad to India and used in the wiring.  Further complainant has relocated some switch boards to a convenient location and opened some switch boards himself.  Expert has opinioned that as per Regulation 29 of Central Electricity Authority(Measures relating to safety and  Electric supply) Regulations 2010 no other person than a licensed electrical contractor is competent to modify the electrification.  Learned counsel of OP argued that the expert commissioner opinioned that as he is not a competent person to report about matters  relating to other work like plumbing etc, there is no evidence relating to  assess the work  done by 1^st OP in plumbing work etc.

   But it can be seen  that the Advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 report, described about the defects made by 1^st OP in the plumbing work and electric work in the house in dispute.  It is reported that the plumbing works of wash basin and  sinks are done by inexperienced workers without applying proper mind.  That the marks of stain are visible in the tiles where the dirty water over flowed through the junction of tail pipe and sink/wash basin.  The reason is nothing but the workers has cut and removed actual joining part of tail pipe and simply fitted in a condition not possible  to tighten the socket and wash basin.  During inspection the complainant  invites his attention where  an additional brick was constructed.  According to him the same was constructed to cover the pipes which were laid wrongly by the workers  and  to operate a switch in a bed room to verify the result.  When I do so it results two bulbs in that room and a bulb  which is in the sunshade also working by using the single switch.  Moreover the switch board fitted in the bathroom may create an unexpected danger in future since the same is installed nearer to the wash basin and shower.

   It is seen that 1^st OP has not filed objection to the Exts.C1&C2 reports.  Hence the defects of work noted by the Advocate commissioner in Ext.C1 report is unchallenged.  

   Considering the entire facts and evidence of this case and also from the experts and Advocate commissioners report, it is evident  that there are some defects found in the electrical wiring work as well as in the plumbing work(Advocate commissioner noted). There is no conclusive evidence to find out the quantum of  amount to be needed for  rectifying the defect.  Further there is no evidence to show that  whether complainant has given excess amount to 1^st OP for the work entrusted to him.  Here it is seen that complainant  admitting Exts.A5 to A7 documents.  As per Exts.A5&A7, 1^st OP has stated that he is entitled to get Rs.179235/- from  complainant as balance amount.  For the said amount also  no proof  produced by the 1^st OP about the material purchased and cash receipt. Hence without any conclusive evidence we cannot come to a conclusion about the amount entitled to both parties.

   Considering the entire facts of the case, we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get compensation from 1^st OP for the  deficiency  in service and negligent work.  Since there is no consideration  by 2^nd OP from the complainant, there is no privity of contract between complainant and 2^nd OP.  Complainant also  admitted  that 1^st OP has  entrusted 2^nd OP for submitting  application before KSEB.  Hence from the  facts, between complainant and 2^nd OP  there is no  consumer-service provider relationship.  So he is not entitled to pay compensation to the complainant.

   In the result,  complaint is allowed in part.   1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant  as compensation for the defective work done by 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost to the proceedings of this case.  1^st opposite party shall comply the  order within one month  from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the  amount of Rs.1,00,000/- carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1-Lawyer notice dtd.23/1/18

A2-Postel receipt dtd.25/1/18

A3-returned notice dtd.27/1/18

A4-labour charge chart

A5- whattas app message

A6series-letter issued by OP to PW1(4 in Nos)

A7-Account statement

C1- Advocate  commissioner report

C2-Expert commissioner report

PW1-Krishnan Edavan  Nambiar

DW1-Praveen.P-1^st  OP

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR