Final Order / Judgement | IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI PRESENT:1. SRI. C.V. MARGOOR, B.Com.LLM,PRESIDENT 2. SRI.M.C.DEVAKUMAR,B.E.LLB.PG.DCLP,MEMBER | CC No.50/2017 ORDER DATED 06THDAY OF OCTOBER, 2018 | | Sri. A.P. Poovaiah, S/o. late A.K. Palangappa, Aged 51 years, Niduvattu Village, Kaloor Post, MadikeriTaluk, Kodagu District. (By Dr. Manoj.Y. Bopaiah, Advocate) | -Complainant | V/s | Sri.B.C. Padhmanabha, S/o.Chennappa, Aged 41 years, Katakeri Village, Thalathmane Post, MadikeriTaluk, Kodagu District. (By Sri. Krishna Moorthy.P, Advocate) | -Opponent | Nature of complaint | Miscellaneous claim | Date of filing of complaint | 11/10/2017 | Date of Issue notice | 25/11/2017 | Date of order | 06/10/2018 | Duration of proceeding | 11 months 5 days |
SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT O R D E R - This complaint filed by Mr. A.P. Poovaiah s/o. late .K. Palangappa, aged 51 years, resident of Niduvattu Village, Kaloor Post, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponent to direct him to complete the remaining construction work of his house within a month from the date of complaint, in case the opponent fails to complete the remaining construction work then he be directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for construction of the same and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc.
- The opponent Mr.B.C. Padhmanab s/o. Chennappa, aged 41 years, resident of Katakeri Village, Madikeri Taluk, has entered in to an agreement with the complainant on 01/08/2017 to construct a residential house of the complainant in an area of 980 feet. The opponent has agreed to complete the construction work from the stage of laying foundation till entire finishing work of the house for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-. The opponent has received total sum of Rs.9,40,000/- more than the agreed amount of Rs.8,50,000/- i.e. excess amount of Rs.90,000/- The opponent was agreed to complete the construction work on or before 31/08/2017.
- It is the averred in the complaint that the opponent stopped the construction work without attending wiring work, fixing doors, window glasses, plumbing and painting work. The opponent inspite of the request made by the complainant did not come forward to finish the said work. On account of the attitude of opponent the complainant could not perform house warming ceremony in the month of September, 2017 and thereby he suffered financial loss. The act of opponent amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has approached this Forum.
- The opponent after service of notice has put in appearance through his learned counsel and filed version denying the entire allegations made against him in the complaint. The opponent denied that he has entered in to an agreement with the complainant for construction of his residential house and executed written agreement. It is the case of opponent that the complainant had given the construction work to him on piece work basis and on attending piece work construction the complainant has not made entire payment. The complainant never asked the opponent to finish the construction work. The complainant is still due a sum of Rs.1,42,000/- to this opponent towards the construction work. Instead of paying the said amount he has got completed the construction work from others. On the above grounds, the opponent prays to dismiss the complaint.
- The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced labour contract agreement dated 01/08/2017 and produced five photos of the incomplete construction work of his house. On the contrary the opponent filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence.
- Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant whereas the opponent and his learned counsel were remained absent and the points that would arise for determination are as under;
- Whether the complainant proves that he has entered in to an agreement with the opponent to construct his residential house for a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-?
- Whether the complainant further proves that the act of opponent not completing the construction work of the residential house amounts to deficiency in service?
- What order?
- Our findings on the above points are as under;
- Point No.1:- In the Affirmative
- Point No.2:- In the Affirmative
- Point No.3:- As per final order for the below
R E A S O N S - Point No.1 2:- The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opponent has not produced any documents to show that the complainant is due some amount to him towards construction. No explanation by opponent for not completing the incomplete work before due date.
- The opponent in their version and affidavit evidence contended that he has not executed any agreement in favour of the complainant and the agreement relied upon by the opponent is concocted. The complainant produced written agreement engrossed on the stamp paper on 01/08/2017. The said agreement is signed by the complainant and opponent and it contained terms and conditions for construction of the residential house and total cost of the labour charges is Rs.8,50,000/-. The complainant shall provide required materials for construction on time to the opponent. The opponent shall do the foundation, pillar, wall and slab work. Further he shall put up sajja RCC, centering, carpentry work, fixing windows, doors etc., fittings glasses, plastering, fixing of tiles, plumbing and electric work. It is stated that the opponent has already received Rs.7,00,000/- from the complainant and the complainant shall liable to pay remaining balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The opponent shall complete the entire construction work and handover the building to the complainant on or before 31/08/2017. Below the signature of the complainant, opponent and witnesses the agreement contained the payment particulars and according to this the opponent has received Rs.7,55,680/- from 09/03/2017 to 26/07/2017 and infront of the amount column the opponent put his signature for receipt of the payment. The opponent signed in Kannada on the agreement which consists of three pages. Further the opponent signed in Kannada on the vakalath given to his learned counsel on 25/11/2017. On perusal of the signatures on the vakalath and agreement which are one and the same. Further the opponent even on the version signed in Kannada and the said signatures are similar to the signed on the agreement. The opponent has changed his mind and signed in English on the affidavit evidence filed in this case on 28/07/2018.
- The opponent in the version has taken contention that he has done mason and other works on piece work basis. The opponent has not produced any documentary evidence to support his version. The agreement produced by the complainant is believable since the opponent has not disputed the construction work of the complainant house and failed to produce any document to show that he did the mason work on piece work basis. Hence, point no.1 is answered in the affirmative.
- Point No.2 and 3: - The opponent has not denied that he has not completed the construction of the complainant’s house. On the other hand the opponent in the version and affidavit evidence admitted that the complainant with the help of other persons got completed the construction of his house and now his family residing therein. The complainant produced five photos of incomplete construction of the house. The opponent in the version and affidavit has not assigned the reasons why he did not complete the construction work of the complainant house. The opponent except denying the averments made in the complaint has not come forward to assign reasons why he did not complete the construction. It shows that the opponent by receiving the entire agreed amount of Rs.8,50,000/- did not complete the construction work and thereby committed deficiency in service.
- It has come on record that the complainant has got completed the construction work with the help of other persons and there after occupied the said house. The complainant has not produced documents to show that how much amount he has paid to other mason, plumber, electrician etc. Considering the work left by the opponent, the complainant might have spent Rs.2,50,000/-for the same. The complainant is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the opponent for not completing the work without assigning any reasons though he had received the entire agreed amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. The complainant has to suffer physically and mentally for not completing the work by the opponent in terms of agreement as such he is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R - The complaint filed by Mr. A.P. Poovaiah s/o. late A.K. Palangappa resident of Niduvattu Village is partly allowed directing the opponent to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- within two months from the date of order.
- The opponent shall liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of this litigation to the complainant.
- In case the opponent fails to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order then it carries interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of order till realization.
- Furnish copy of the order to both the parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 06th day of OCTOBER, 2018) (C.V. MARGOOR) PRESIDENT (M.C. DEVAKUMAR) MEMBER | |