Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/112/2021

Armstrong S/o. Sargunam - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.T. Rajagopal S/o S. Thangavelu - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. P. SAKTHIVEL

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                      BEFORE :      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                                             Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.112/2021

(Against order in CC.NO.36/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Coimbatore)

 

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE 2022

 

Armstrong

S/o. Sargunam, Civil Engineer                                   M/s. P. Sakthivel

No.96, Kasthuri Nagar                                                  Counsel for

Sundarapuram, Coimbatore- 24                            Appellant /Opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

 

C.T.Rajagopal

S/o. S. Thangavelu

No.18/A, R.B.Nivas, 8^th Cross Street

Gandhi Nagar, Sundarapuram                                Served and called absent

Coimbatore – 24                                                 Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.29.4.2019 in CC.No.36/2015.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Opposite party as against the order dt.29.4.2019 passed by the District Commission, Coimbatore, in CC.No.36/2015, in allowing the complaint. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

3.       The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

           The complainant alongwith his son R.Balaji had entered into an agreement with the appellant/ opposite party for construction of first floor residential portion and stairs in the building, where the complainant is residing.  The ground floor of the house consisting of 509 sq.ft, and it was proposed to construct 881 sq.ft in the first floor.  The total cost of construction was estimated at Rs.13,76,300/-, including of materials.  The opposite party had received totally a sum of Rs.10,77,000/- by way of instalments.  Further on the request made by the opposite party, the complainant had paid Rs.30000/- to the mason, and for buying water for the construction the complainant had paid Rs.15000/-, thus totally a sum of Rs.11,22,000/- had been paid to the opposite party.  But till March 2014, the opposite party had constructed only a pillar and roof and the wall.  Thereafter he had not proceeded with any construction, but the opposite party was insisting the complainant to pay further amount.  Since he had not done the work as promised, the complainant had refused to pay any amount.  Hence the opposite party abandoned the work and left the construction site.  Though the complainant made repeated requests, the opposite party had refused to complete the work.  Hence the complainant left with no other alternative, engaged someother workman and completed the construction.  Therefore the opposite party came to the complainant’s house and quarrelled with the complainant’s wife, and during the quarrel he had broken glass door.  Hence the complainant had filed a complaint against the complainant before the Podanur police station.  On such complaint, the police had negotiated with the opposite party, and directed to assess the value of the work done so far by appointing an engineer, and to settle the issue amicably between the complainant and the opposite party. Based on the advise of the police the complainant had appointed a surveyor, to assess the completed work and he had estimated the value of the civil work done at Rs.940000/-, whereas the opposite party had received a sum of Rs.11,22,000/-.  Therefore, it is apparent that the opposite party had received  a sum of Rs.182000/- from the complainant in excess, but had not done the work.  Thus alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.182000/-, and also for another a sum of Rs.7500/- towards the damage caused to the syntax tank, and Rs.10000/- towards damaging the mirror door, alongwith compensation of Rs.35000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- totalling a sum of Rs.239500/-. 

 

 4.      The said claim was resisted by the opposite party by filing the version as follows:

          The opposite party had admitted the agreement entered between the complainant and his son and the opposite party.  The complainant’s son R.Balaji, has not been added as a party.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for not impleading the necessary party.  This opposite party had received only a sum of Rs.911300/- from the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.1077000/-, and further sum of Rs.30000/- and Rs.15000/- totalling a sum of Rs.11,22,990/- cannot be accepted.  The receipt of said amount is not proved by the complainant by producing necessary receipt.  As per the surveyor report, it is established that the opposite party had not abandoned the work in half way.  Moreover, as per the valuation of the surveyor, the work done was estimated at Rs.940000/-, whereas the complainant had paid only a sum of Rs.911300/- to the opposite party.  There are lot of discrepancies in the surveyor report.  The actual value of the work is assessed properly, and it is the complainant who has to pay a sum of Rs.373677/- to the opposite party.  Therefore the complainant alone is liable to pay amount to the opposite party.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.       In order to prove their respective complaints, proof affidavits were filed on either side before the District Commission, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant.  There was no document filed on the side of the opposite party.

 

6.       The District Commission, after analysing the entire evidence had come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and thus directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10000/- towards compensation for mental agony alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-. 

 

7.       The main submission of the complainant is that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.11,22,000/- in total to the opposite party, whereas according to the civil engineer’s report, the value of the work done was only Rs.940000/-.  Therefore the opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.1,82,000/-.

 

8.       Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that it is the complainant who has to pay a sum of Rs.234700/- to the opposite party.  It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that since the disputed question involved in this case, the District Commission ought to have dismissed the complaint by giving direction to the complainant to approach the civil court.  Instead of doing so, the District Commission had erroneously passed an order, by holding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

 

9.       Before this commission the Respondent/ complainant though served, remained absent.

 

10.     We have heard the submission of the appellant, and perused the records.  As seen from the order of the District Commission, the amount was awarded towards the compensation for deficiency in service and for mental agony only.  There was no observation made by the forum below with regard to the value of the amount paid to the opposite party.  The opposite party themselves stated in their version that “the complainant had completed only some of the work by engaging someother workman, which the opposite party had left out as per agreement”.  The above statement would show that the opposite party had not completed his work as per agreement, and abandoned the site as it is.  Therefore, the act of the opposite party in abandoning the work half way, would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complainant is undoubtedly entitled for compensation.  Moreover the District Commission has awarded only a sum of Rs.25000/-  towards deficiency in service and Rs.10000/- towards mental agony, which appears to be very reasonable, considering the factual aspect of the case.  Therefore we find no infirmity in the order passed by the forum below, warranting us to interfere.  Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

 

11.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore in CC.No.36/2015 dt.29.4.2019.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                       R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT