V KRISHNAN Vs. SMN CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in O.P. No. 343/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant. The 2nd complainant along with the 1st complainant, a Consumer Organisation, filed the complaint alleging as follows. The 1st complainant entrusted certain civil works to the appellant/opposite party and paid Rs. 33,000 as consideration. These civil works included construction of compound wall, putting up grill gates, platform flooring, kitchen sink alteration, wood work in cupboards and colour washing. The works were executed between 4.1.1997 and 7.2.1997. There were certain defects in the works. The external white wash had been washed away in the sudden rain in April 1997 itself. There were cracks in the platforms put up. The compound wall has a bend thus wasting 60 sq. ft. of the land. These defects were reported to the opposite party. There was no response. Hence, the complaint claiming refund of Rs. 25,500 with interest, compensation and costs.

(2.) THE opposite party filed a version stating inter alia as follows : With regard to the compound wall, there was no bend as alleged in the complaint. The compound wall was constructed on the markings made by the complainant. The cracks alleged accrued due to the roots of the coconut tree and not due to any defective work. As regards the alleged defective white washing and colour washing, the distemper was selected and approved by the complainant. The works were executed by the opposite party to the choice and satisfaction of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the District Forum framed the following point for determination : Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so to what relief is the complainant entitled?