Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 and documents marked as Exts. A1 to A4.  No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party and B1 was marked on the side of opposite party. The Forum below on considering the evidence and documents, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the cost of 3 Teak wood trees together with interest.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted that Ext. B1 is the agreement with the opposite party who paid the compensation for rebuilding of the collapsed boundary during the construction of the Swimming Pool. The Ext. A2and A3 submitted by the respondent/complainant were disputed  as the appellant had no marketing executive or any representative entrusted to continue the work of the swimming pool.  He also contended that the complaint is devoid of merit due to non-jointer of the necessary party.  He emphatically denied that there had no Teak Wood Trees in the plot of the complainant. No witness was examined to prove this matter.   The construction of pool is only the contract of personal service and that matter does not come before the consumer Forum.  As there had no Teak Wood trees in the plot of the complainant, the appellant is not entitled to pay Rs. 40,000/- as  the value of the Teak trees.                    6.  The submission of the counsel for the respondent is that the opposite parties introduced themselves as  a leading pool company  having the knowledge and  infrastructure to construct swimming pools with modern technology. Ext. A1 is produced to prove the details of the Swimming pool maintenance  and construction.  Ext. A2 & A3 were the agreements entered into with the appellant/opposite party who was represented  as marketing executive of the appellant.  It is also submitted that before the construction of the Swimming Pool advance  cheque for Rs. 1,50,000/- was issued to the opposite party/appellant which was later on terminated evidenced by  Ext. A4.  It is also not disputed that there had a dispute of the boundary collapse while the construction of the Swimming Pool was in progress and the appellant had to pay  an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as damages to the complainant which is also not disputed by the appellant.  It is also submitted that for the construction of the Swimming Pool the opposite party had cut and removed the teak wood trees.  It is a matter of fact that  the agreement was cancelled due to difference of opinion between the parties and the construction came to a stand still and cancelled the advance cheque also.   Since no agreement was existing, the price of the teak wood trees was due to be paid to the appellant/opposite party which comes to  40,000/-