KAMAL KHATTAR Vs. T MADHUSUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 1040/2010 dated 17.10.2011.

(2.) In the Complaint, it was stated that the Respondent/Opposite Party was the proprietor/partner of the firm in the name and style of Network India which undertook water proofing and water sealing operations in buildings, including residential. The Respondent carried out water proofing and water sealing work at the residence of the Petitioner/Complainant, whose building was suffering due to constant seepage and leakage problems from October 2004 to Jan, 2004. The Petitioner cleared all bills raised by the Opposite Party in connection with the above mentioned operations carried out by the Respondent. It was alleged that the premises of the Petitioner invariably leaked whenever there were rains and suffered from constant seepage problems due to defective and substandard work carried out by the Respondent. Despite several requests, the Opposite Party did not repair/rectify the work carried out by him. The Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent on 07.06.2005, but to no avail. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

(3.) The Respondent filed written statement in which he reiterated that the Petitioner approached the Respondent for availing his services. On 27.10.2004, the Respondent started the work in good faith and as per specification. On 05.11.2004, an advance payment of Rs. 20,000/- was received by the Respondent. Thereafter, the Respondent started the work of removing the old treatment upto the roof slab level, repairing the cracks and filling the same. The Respondent further started 1st layer of water proofing treatment with polymer felt, as per the specification and two layers of fiberglass R.P. tisse laid with hot refined mineral asphalt(Bitumen). The Petitioner made payment of only Rs. 1,45,000/- out of the total final bill of Rs. 1,75,718/- and balance amount of Rs. 30,717/- was still pending payment by the Petitioner. When the Respondent asked for the balance payment, the Petitioner alleged that rates of Respondent's were too high and that he would not pay the balance amount. The Respondent tried his level best to clarify the his rates were at par with the market rates but the Petitioner ignored him. The Petitioner compelled the Respondent to bring ten years guarantee bond on stamp paper and accordingly the same was given on 28.12.2004. Time to time, the Respondent was approaching the Petitioner for making the balance payment, but to no avail. On 09.06.2005, the Respondent received notice from one Sh. Sunil Kumar, Advocate saying that seepage/leakage led to electric shock and damages to their articles/appliances. When the Respondent sent his worker to inspect the roof, the Petitioner abused and did not allow him to see the roof. Thereafter, the Respondent replied to the said notice through his advocate on 04.07.2005. The, Respondent had done water proofing treatment and had not seen any electrical wiring on the roof.