CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 21/08/2012
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/159/2012
Chandrika,
W/o.Chandramohan & D/o.M.M.Das,
Krishna Nivas, Chorath Line,
Chittur Taluk, Palakkad.
Presently residing at
Rohini, Western Village Road,
Thathamangalam, Palakkad – 678102. : Complainant
(By Adv.U.Suresh and K.Dhananjayan)
Vs
Chenthamarakshan,
S/o. Chami, Aalakkal Veedu, Edakara P.O., : Opposite Party
Palakkad.
(By Adv.N.Anoop Kumar)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member
The complainant decided to construct a dwelling house for their residential purpose and entered into an agreement with opposite party on 31-08-2009, and have entrusted the work for construction of the same to him. The complainant alleges that the opposite party was duty bound to construct and handover a RCC residential house on the specification and details stated in the agreement with good quality and as per the consideration as agreed and decided upon by the complainant. As per the terms of the agreement it has been mutually decided that the consideration for the said construction is Rs.800/- per sq.ft. The complainant also states that “the time was the essence of the agreement and it has been mutually agreed and decided also”. The complainant was required to pay Rs.7,21,200/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Twenty One Thousand and Two Hundred Only) as the total consideration, when the opposite party handed over the key of the building after its complete construction. The total plinth area of the building is measured as 902.4 Sq.ft. It was also decided that the opposite party should use only quality building materials including the sand, cement, iron rod, sanitary and toilet wares, electrical and plumping materials , flooring and wall tiles and granites also and all other building materials used for the construction of the house. As stated above the opposite party had to complete the building after its full completion on or before 31.08.2010. After agreeing the terms and condition of the agreement the opposite party had undertaken the work and began to construct the house. The complainant was also duty bound to pay the amount of construction as per the completion of various stages to the opposite party. The complainant submits that the opposite party has not completed the work as per the terms of the agreement and has abandoned the construction in midway without completing it on time. The complainant further submits that he has so far paid Rs.3,32,000/-(Three Lakh Thirty two thousand only) and thereafter constructed the lintel and the walls up to half feet above the lintel level. The complainant alleges that the work done by the opposite party has a lot of defect and the plastering of the walls have been began to peel off. The complainant alleges that the work done by the opposite party would worth only for Rs.1,79,600/-(Rupees One Lakh Seventy Nine thousand and Six hundred Only) and therefore the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.1,53,000/-(One Lakh Fifty Three thousand Only). The non completion and abandoning of the house construction in mid way that to in a very substandard quality would amount to glaring deficiency of service. As the building is not completed well within time, the complainant had incurred a loss of more than Rs.7,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh only). The complainant had also availed a housing loan from the LIC and had suffered excessive amount to complete the construction. Therefore the complainant has approached before the forum seeking a compensation of Rs.10 Lakh as damages for the mental agony suffered by him due to the deficiency of service committed by the opposite party.
The Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version denying all the allegations of the complaint. They admit that there was a building contract but all the rest of the allegations contained in the complaint are denied and the reason for non-completion of the building is due to the non co-operation of the complainant and they have not effected the payments as per the terms of the contract.
In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has taken out an expert commission and the commissioner has filed a report. The complainant and opposite party filed their respective chief affidavits. The opposite party also filed petition to set aside commission report along with the objections. The commission report was remitted to the same commissioner for the further inspection. Exhibits A1 and A2 was marked from the part of the complainant. Commission reports were marked as C1 and C2. Commissioner was examined as CW1. Complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite party filed an interim application to summon PWD engineer in order to produce documents relating to the rate of construction and cost of construction prevailing during the year 2009 and 2010. IA was dismissed vide separate order. The expert commissioner has stated that the total work done by the opposite party is Rs.1.80,000/-.(Rupees One lakh eighty thousand only).Hence evidence was closed and matter was heard.
Issues that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
- If so, what is the relief ?
Heard both parties.
Issue No.1
We have perused the affidavits as well as documents produced before the forum. In order to prove the case of the complainant he has taken out an expert commission and the commission reports are also produced before the forum. The main disputes between the parties is that the complainant has effected a sum of Rs.3,32,000/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand only). It is also evident from the endorsement in Ext A1 agreement as well as from Ext A2 passbook of the complainant. The commissioner has assessed that the work done by the opposite party would worth only Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only). The commissioner was also subjected to cross examination by the counsel of the opposite party. Our National Commission has categorically observed that unless and otherwise there is compelling reasons to the contrary, the commission report cannot be discarded. The complainant had also submitted that he had availed housing loan from LIC and it has to be repaid with 18% interest to the LIC without achieving its intended purposes. From the available evidence for the forum it can be concluded that only structural works as stated by the complainant had been completed by the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party that the non-completion of the building was due to the non co-operation of the complainant without affecting payments cannot hold good, since it is found otherwise . The complainant had paid an excess amount for more than the work affected by the opposite party. From the above discussions we are of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service by not completing the work as per the terms of the agreement. Hence the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings of the complainant along with Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) as cost of this proceedings for the deficiency of service committed by them. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @9% from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of July 2015
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Original agreement dtd 31-08-2009
Ext.A2 –Savings bank passbook issued by UCO bank bearing SB A/c No.007088 in the name of complainant (Original copy)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
C1- Ramesh.O
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1-Chandrika.
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.5000/-as cost
