State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Interiors & Exteriors (A Water Proofing ... vs Smt K.Bala Tripura Sundari, W/O ... on 14 March, 2013
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT VIJAWAYADA FA.NO.831 of 2012 AGAINST CC.NO. 49 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM II KRISHNA AT VIJAYAWADA Between: Interiors & Exteriors (A Water Proofing Co) Rep., by its Proprietor Sri M.Ram Gopal, Engineers & Contractor, # 52-1/13-4/1, Veternary Colony, Ring Roadk, vijayawada 520 008. Appellant/opposite party A N D Smt K.Bala Tripura Sundari, W/o K.Basavaiah, 60 years, R/o Flat No.10 in Block D, Ram Mohan Enclave, Opp. To RTC Woprkshop, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada 520 012 Rep., by Consumers Guidance Society, Having its registered and administration office at D.No.58-1-26, Flat No.1, Veerapaneni Plaza, Patamata, Vijayawada 10. Respondent/complainant Counsel for Appellant M/s K. Sudershan. Counsel for Respondent Notice held sufficient QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order (Per Sri R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO Honble Member) ***
1. The opposite parties have filed the appeal contending that the District Forum has not considered the evidence on record in proper perspective and that there was no evidence to show that the respondent got improper repaired work rectified with other technicians. It is contended that there is no pleading to the effect that two engineers visited the house of the respondent on the same day which cast doubt on correctness of the report given by them. It is contended that the respondent has fabricated letters Exs.A9 and All and that the respondent has not issued any notice to the appellants.
2. The respondent entrusted repairs on water proofing to arrest the leakage to her flat No.19 in 2nd Floor, B-Block, Ram Mohan Enclave, Bhavanipuram to the appellant company for consideration of Rs.23,000/-on 14.7.2011. The appellants assured her repair works undertaken by them walls were completed in all aspects. The respondent noticed leakage of water at the spot where the repair had been carried out by the appellants and she had intimated the fact to the appellants. The appellants had not acceded to the request of the respondent. She hired service of another professional of water leakage service by spending an amount of `25,000/- to rectify the repairs.
3. The appellants resisted the claim on the premise that it had carried out water proofing process to the respondents apartment. It is contended that respondent has not produced any document to show that she got the leakage arrested effecting necessary repairs by spending Rs.25,000/- and also that there is no pleading to the effect in the complaint. It is contended that the respondent had fabricated the documents to suit her claim and she had not issued any notice prior to the date of filing the complaint.
4. The respondent filed her affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the appellant company Sri M. Ram Gopal, proprietor filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.B1 to B7.
5. The District Forum allowed the complaint observing that the appellant failed to complete the repairs to the flat of the respondent and the respondent got repaired the leakage problem on the balcony of her flat by two engineers. The District Forum directed the appellants to pay the amount that was received from the appellants.
6. Maintenance Committee and Welfare Association of the building which comprises the apartment No.10 belonging to the respondent issued notice to the respondent requesting her that the building required painting for which the amount to a tune of `2,80,000/- is required to be paid and the owner of each apartment has to pay `5,000/- in two instalments to the association on or before 15th March, 2011. The association had issued notice on 29.6.2011 to the respondent complaining of leakage of water on either side of the balcony and also from the side of the bathroom of the flat and she was requested to repair the leakage of water.
7. The respondent lodged complaint against appellant to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada that the appellant cheated her in regard to water roofing for leaking slab of her flat and she referred to the assistance of two engineers by whose assistance she got over the leakage problem of her flat which was left in imperfect condition by the appellant.
The appellant entered into agreement with the respondent on 14.7.2011 agreeing to undertake injection pressure grouting for the leakage of bathrooms, balconies, kitchen etc., for consideration of `23,000/- and the work was agreed to the carried out from 16.7.2011. The terms and conditions of the agreement provide for building material by the 1st respondent and payment of total amount `23,000/- for procurement of WTC. The work was guaranteed by the appellant for a period of five years and curing was agreed to carried out by the 1st respondent.
8. There is no dispute of the fact that appellant paid `23,000/- as per the agreement, Rs.10,000/- on 14.7.2011 and `13,000/- on 16.7.2011 to the appellant. Respondent addressed letter dated 14.3.2011 to the welfare association of the building and in reply the association demanded her to rectify the leakage of water from her flat. The respondent is got issued notice to the appellant and it was returned with endorsement the appellant had shifted his residence.
9. The respondent filed certificate issued by D. Chatravathi, Civil Engineer and Gopal Rao, Civil Engineer. Both certificates would go to show that leakage was there still subsiding and not arrested as also that the appellant failed to control the leakage after breaking slab and it did not reconstruct the repair area as also that the leakage was controlled immediately.
10. The appellant disputed certificates issued by the civil engineer. It is not denied that the appellant has shifted his residence without giving any intimation to the postal authorities. As such the appellant cannot be heard to contend that the respondent had not issued notice to it prior to filing the complaint.
11. The terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and the respondent would show that the appellant had given guarantee for five years for the work it had undertaken in regard to the leakage of water on either of balcony and bathroom of the respondents apartment. It is not the case of the appellant that the repair work was not carried out due to the lapse on the part of the respondent in getting carried out curing which is one of the stages of the work agreed to be carried out by the appellant. In the circumstances, there is no much scope to uphold the contention of the appellants that the certificates issued by the engineers are not trustworthy piece of evidence and the repairs ere undertaken by it met the prescribed standard.
12. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER DT.14.03.2013 CB/VJA