IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA 

Thursday,   the 31st   day of August, 2017

Filed on 28.12.2016.

Present

    1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

    2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

    3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

CC/No.415/2016

 Between

Complainant:           Opposite party:

Sri. N.G. Aravindakshan Asan Sri. Rajesh

Nikarthilchira veedu                         Nikarthil Veedu

Velorvattom, Cherthala.P.O Near Vayalar Mandapam

Alappuzha-688524 Valayar.P.O, Cherthala

                                    

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The opposite party under took the work of  painting  the office of ‘Asan Sanghadana’ and the complainant purchased the painting materials as per the direction of the opposite party.  The opposite party has started the painting work and done the work for 6 days but there after he did not come for the  work saying that he was not well.  After a few more days when the opposite party come for completing the painting work the complainant has not allowed him to do the remaining painting work saying that the work done by  him is not satisfactory and the complainant engaged other persons for completing  the painting work but by that time the paint become soldified  and it could not be used.  There after the complainant had registered a complaint before the police station but the matter was not settled.  The act of the opposite party caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant hence filed this complaint seeking refund the value of the paining materials together with compensation and cost.

2. Notice was served to the opposite party.  The opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version.

3. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable.   The opposite party and one Mr. Nanappan agreed to paint the ‘Ashan Sanghadana’ but no agreement was executed.   The complainant agreed to pay Rs. 700 per day for the painting work.  The complainant has paid the daily wages for 6 days but thereafter he has not paid the wages for the   5 days saying that the entire amount will be given after completing the painting work.  Since the complainant has not paying the daily wages of the opposite party he 

 

 

intimated the complainant that he will not do the work if the complainant does not give the daily wages due to him.  Then the complainant told that he will engage other persons to complete the work and done accordingly.  The opposite party requested the complainant to pay their wages which was due  but the complainant says  that the paint became solidified and he refused to pay the wages for the work done.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed hence the complaint may be dismissed.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 was marked.  One witness was also examined as PW2 and Ext.Mo1 to Mo4 were marked. 

4. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite party  this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:

                1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

     2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

5. Issues 1 and 2

               The case of the complainant is that the opposite party under took the work of painting the Ashan Sanghadana and started the work but there after he has not come for doing the work saying that he was not well and when the opposite party came to complete the painting work the complainant has not allowed the opposite party to do the  remaining painting work saying that the work done by the opposite party is not satisfactory and engaged other persons to complete the work. But by that time some of the painting materials which was brought as per the direction of the opposite party became solidified and the complainant could not use it, hence filed this complaint. 

The main allegation of the complainant is that some of the painting materials he purchased became soldified due to the act of the opposite party.  In order to substantiate the allegation the complainant produced Ext.A1 bill and  MOI-4 According to the complainant he purchased the painting materials on specified in Ext.A1.   On a perusal of the documents it can be seen that out of the four MO produced only two of them were mentioned in Ext. A1 

and   the other MOs were not mentioned in Ext.A1 bill.  So it is clear that the complainant has purchased only 2 MOS as per Ext.A1

Admittedly no agreement was executed between the complainant and the opposite party.  The document produced would not shows  that the opposite party has under took the work  of painting and  therefore  no  breach of contract can be attributed on the part of the opposite party. More over it was pleaded in the complainant that when the opposite party came for doing  the remaining work the complainant himself not allowed the opposite party to complete the work saying that the work done by the opposite party is not satisfactory. According to the opposite party he has stopped the work only 

 

because the complainant has not paid the daily wages for more than 6 days.  The complainant has not made any effort to disprove the same. Nothing was brought in evidence to prove that the daily wages 

of opposite party has been paid without default.    The only allegation of the complainant is that some painting materials became solidified because of the act of the opposite party and he could not use it and therefore the needs refund of the cost of the painting materials which he could not use, but the documents produced would not show that the complainant has purchased the same painting materials again. The complainant failed to prove   his case with supporting documents and in the absence of any cogent or concrete evidence we can’t held the opposite party liable for any deficiency in service on scanning the entire evidence we can’t find any deficiency in service on the part of  the opposite party.  Hence the complaint  fails.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st     day of August, 2017.                                                                                           

Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

   Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)

                            Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)

 Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1 - Aravindakshan Asan (Witness)

PW2 - Suganthy Aravindakshan Asan (Witness)

MOs - 3 Tins

Ext.A1  - Bill dtd 03/12/2016

Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil 

 

//True copy//

 

       By Order

 

 

 

Senior Superintendent

To

Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

 

Typed by: Br/-

Comped . by: