SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.29,000/- along with Rs.25,000/- as  compensation to the complainant.

Complaint in brief

            According to the complaint, complainant is the mother of the owner of property situating in 91/6 Chirakkal amson desom who is an NRI.  The complainant says that she had decided to dig a well in the said property and wished to erect a Nellipala in the well for the purpose of purifying the water in the well permanently and complainant engaged OP as they have experience in the filed by fixing a consideration of Rs.49,000/- and OP promised that he will supply the same believe the completion of well digging.  The complainant paid Rs.49,000/- to OP and all time complainant enquired about the work and OP promised that he will deliver before the completion of well.  But, OP never started the work of Nellipala and complainant submits the suffered mental pain and monitory loss.  As the last resort, complainant lodged a complaint before SHO Valapattanam and OP gave Rs.20,000/- only to complainant and promised to pay Rs.29,000/- within 2 weeks.  But complainant never received the balance amount.  Due to the negligent act of OP, complainant couldn’t erect Nellipala in the well and also suffered mental agony and pain and hence this complaint.

            After filing the complaint, commission sent notice to OP.  The OP’s notice returned with an endorsement as “unclaimed”.  So presume that notice is properly served.  But the OP is not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  The commission had to hold that the OP has no version as such this case came to be proceed against the OP is set ex-parte.

            Even though the OP has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the OP.  Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant chosen to produce his affidavit along with 4 documents which is marked as Ext.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the certified copy of assignment deed, A2 is the copy of lawer notice A3 is the acknowledgment card and Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by SHO Valapattanam.   The complainant was examined as Pw1.  So the OP is remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

            On the perusal of documents produced by complainant since the OP remained      ex-parte, Ext.A1 shows that the ownership of the property belongs to Tridish, S/o Balan resides at Kaavungal (H), Chirakkal amsom,.  The complainant filed by the mother of Tridish being the beneficiary of Tridish.  There is no other proof on the side of complaint to show that there is an agreement between complainant and OP except Ext.A4 which is a receipt issued by Valapattanam police station on the receival of complaint regarding the non-payment of consideration (Rs.49,000/-) which was paid by complaint to OP for the erection of Nellipala.  As per Ext.A2 lawyer notice and the complaint, complainant admits the she received Rs.20,000/- from OP and OP made a promise to pay the balance amount for Rs.29,000/- which was  not paid yet.  The complainant entrusted OP to erect Nellipala which digging well in her property. Ext.A3 is evident enough to show that Ext.A2 is properly received by OP.  Even after the receipt of Ext.A4 and notice from the commission, OP evaded from appearance.  There is no evidence to show the payment of rs.49,000/- to OP evaded from appearance.   There is no evidence to show the payment of Rs.49,000/- to OP by complainant and no evidence to show that complainant received Rs.20,000/- but only a mere statement by complainant that she paid Rs.49,000/- and she received Rs.20,000/-.  But knowingly OP remained ex-parte on they have fair enough chance to appear and defend his case.  So, the commission in the view that, OP failed to deliver the Nellippala as ordered by complainant even after the entire payment made by complainant lead to deficiency in service.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that there is deficiency in service from the part of OP so the OP is liable to pay Rs.29,000/- towards unpaid balance amount of Nellipiala and along with Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

            In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party is direct to pay Rs.29,000/- towards the unpaid balance amount of Nellipala and also pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts.

A1-Certified copy of assignment deed

A2- Copy of lawyer notice

A3- Acknowledgement card

A4- Receiipt of issued by SHO Valapatanam

Pw1-Complainant

      Sd/                                                                                    Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar