Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/14/2017

A.Dayanidhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Balamurugan - Opp.Party(s)

S.Siva Sangarane

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of filing : 20.10.2016

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:  Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                             Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER

 

 

C.C.No.14 of 2017

Thursday, the 17^th day of  February 2023

 

1. Dayanidhi

Plot No.99,

Senai Thalaivar Nagar

College Road,

Madanankuppam

Kolathur,

Chennai-99                                              .. Complainant

                                            

                                    

- Vs –

Balamurugan

S/o. Mr. V.C. Muthulingam

No.10/2, V.M. Nagar

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                              .. Opposite Party

       

 

Counsel for the Complainant            :  M/s. S. Siva Sangarane

Counsel for the Opposite party        :  M/s. R. Karunagaran

                                                    

 

This complaint came before us for final hearing on 14.11.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant, and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Sections 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following directions to the opposite party:

1. To rectify all the defects in the house of the complainant constructed by the opposite party or alternatively to refund the entire sum of Rs.14,00,000/- being the cost of construction paid by the complainant;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.70,550/- towards temporary bathroom constructed by the complainant;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship; and
4. To pay the cost of the complaint.

 

 

     2.  In brief, the case of the complainant as projected in the Complaint is as follows:  

        The complainant is the owner of plot No.99, Senai Thalaivar Nagar, College Road, Madanankuppam, Kolathur, Chennai-99.  When the complainant decided to construct a house in the said plot, he was informed by his known circle that the opposite party is a qualified Engineer and is engaged in the business of construction, having good expertise in the construction field.  The opposite party had also produced various photographs of houses and images of other buildings from his laptop and stated that those buildings were constructed by him.  He represented that he has got good building plans, with good designs and assured the complainant that he would always use good quality building materials and skilled labourers for construction, for durability and stability of the building.  The opposite party had also assured the complainant that the workmanship of the construction would be of good standard and on par with the reputed builders.  Further, he had stated that he would never compromise either with material or workmanship, at any cost.  Believing his representations, assurances and promises, the complainant agreed to give the construction work of his house, to the opposite party.  During the initial meetings, the complainant had informed the opposite party that he had planned and sourced the budget for the construction of his house at around Rs.8 lakhs.  Since the opposite party informed the complainant that they can construct only 600 sq.ft. for         Rs.8 lakhs and that the budget should be increased to have a comfortable and spacious house with good light and air to lead a healthy habitable environment and a decent lifestyle.  If the budget is increased, the opposite party assured to construct a house measuring around 850 sq.ft., containing one spacious hall, bedroom and kitchen.  That apart, the opposite party agreed to construct one Indian toilet, a western bathroom, septic tank, overhead tank including electricity and concealed plumbing with one bore-well and a compound wall on three sides with a main gate.  As the complainant was very much impressed with the representations, he increased the budget for construction of the house from Rs.8 lakhs to Rs.14 lakhs.  To source the funds, he decided to give voluntary retirement and accordingly he retired.  It was agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties to pay the construction cost of the building in instalments, on stage-wise development of construction, as follows:-

 

Sl. No.	Stage of Construction	Instalment	Amount to be given to the Opposite party (INR)
1	Foundation and Basement work	First	Rs.4,00,000/-
2	Brick Works  till Roof level	Second	Rs.2,00,000/-
3	Concrete Roofing	Third	Rs.4,00,000/-
4	Plastering, Wiring and Plumbing	Fourth	Rs.2,00,000/-
5	Painting and Finishing Works	Fifth	Rs.2,00,000/-

 

The complainant had made the payments at the relevant times without any delay and the building was constructed and completed by the opposite party and was handed over to the complainant during November 2012. The complainant performed Grahapravesam on 23.11.2012.  During July 2013, the complainant found crack on the walls of hall, bedroom, bathroom and compound wall.  When the same was informed to the opposite party, he stated that the same is due to seasonal and temperature changes and it is common in all buildings and that will not affect the stability of the building.  Thereafter, during February 2014, those cracks developed on the walls of hall, bedroom, bathroom and compound wall, further extended to many places and especially in the bathroom the cracks were intensive.  Again the complainant informed the same to the opposite party.  Thereafter, the opposite party visited the place and informed the complainant that within a short span of time, he would carry out some supportive works to stop the cracks from further spreading.  But, to the utter shock and dismay, the opposite party failed to carry out the supportive work to stop the crack, as promised.  In September 2014, the cracks developed further and the walls of bathroom were completely broken and were damaged.  The building material started falling down.  Inspite of repeated requests and reminders, the opposite party did not come forward to execute the supportive work.  During the year 2015, the tiled floor of the bathroom separately went below the ground level by two inches depth, thereby the wall was separated from the roof of the bathroom and was standing without any support and the roof of the bathroom was hanging without any support, posing danger to the life of complainant’s family members.  The efforts taken by the complainant to contact the opposite party ended in vain.  The opposite party avoided to meet the complainant and evaded to rectify the defects in the construction work.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice on 23.04.2016 calling upon the opposite party to rectify all the defects in the house constructed by him, within 15 days, failing which the complainant would initiate appropriate legal proceedings for refund of the entire sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, with interest.  The Opposite party sent a bald reply dated 17.05.2016, however, accepted that the cost of construction was Rs.1300/- per sq.ft., the total area of construction was 650 sq.ft but not 850 sq.ft. and the total cost received for construction was Rs.14,00,000/-, as stated by the complainant.  Hence, the complainant sent a rejoinder dated 04.07.2016 informing the opposite party that the complainant cannot wait endlessly for the opposite party to rectify the defects caused due to poor workmanship and that in order to make the house into habitable condition, he had decided to rectify the same himself at the cost of the opposite party.  Thereafter the opposite party inspected the house and informed the complainant that the same cannot be rectified and the complainant had to put up a new construction.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party, for the relief stated supra.

 

      3.   The opposite party had filed a detailed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint.   There is no sanctioned building plan from competent authorities to build the house.  The complainant supplied his own material and the opposite party carried out the construction only on work contract.  The complainant paid only the labour cost to the opposite party.  While the construction work was in progress, the complainant often changed the work, according to his whims and fancies.  As the complainant wanted to perform the Grahapravesam in a hurried manner, he did not allow the opposite party to do the curing work.  However, the complainant received a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the opposite party stating that he would do the curing work on his own.  There is no written agreement between the complainant and the opposite party.  Though the complainant noticed the cracks on the wall in July 2013, the legal notice was sent only on 23.04.2016.  The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands.  The payment of Rs.14 lakhs by the complainant is baseless.  The allegation of the complainant that the rectification work cannot be done and he advised to put a new construction is denied by the opposite party.  The complainant has filed a vexatious complaint and hence sought to dismiss the same.

      4.  In order to prove the case, the complainant, along with proof affidavit, has filed 9 documents and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A9.  The opposite party has neither filed  proof affidavit nor documents in support of his case.

 

     5.  There is no representation for the opposite party. Keeping in mind the submission made by the counsel for the complainant, we have carefully gone through the entire material placed on record.

 

     6.  On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that the main allegation of the complainant is that the construction of the opposite party is not of quality, there are lot of defects in the construction and everyday he was facing problem right from the date of construction. But the opposite party is totally denying the allegations.  We are of the opinion that there is a disputed question of facts involved in this case.  Since the same cannot be decided in a summary manner by this Consumer Forum, the appropriate remedy for the complainant is only to approach the civil court where the parties can mark the documents, cross examine the other side and adduce elaborate evidence to substantiate his claim.  This Consumer Commission cannot give any relief to the complainant by merely relying upon the pleadings and the photographs put forth in the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

      7.  In the result, the Complaint is dismissed.  No costs.  However, the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                  R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Sl.No.       Date                 Description of Documents

 

     Ex.A1        23.11.2012       Grahapravesam Invitation

 

    Ex.A2        23.04.2016       Legal Notice issued by the complainant

                                               to the opposite party

 

                           Ex.A3        17.05.2016       Reply Notice by the opposite party to

                                                                      the complainant

 

                         Ex.A4        04.07.2016       Rejoinder Notice issued by the complainant

                                                                    to the opposite party

 

Ex.A5        05.07.2016       Acknowledgement Card

 

Ex.A6                                Photographs of the house and bathroom

                                          Showing the damages and cracks

 

Ex.A7                                Photographs of the temporary bathroom

                                                                   Constructed by the complainant

 

                       Ex.A8                                Statement of expenses for the construction

                                                                 Of the temporary bathroom by the

                 complainant

 

Ex.A9                                Statement of accounts of the complainant

                  A/c. No.440723675, Indian Bank, Park

                  Town Branch, for the period from

     01.06.2012 to 01.06.2013.

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

•   NIL   

 

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023