Date of Filing: 16/08/2011
Date of Order: 30/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1510 OF 2011
Sri. D. Thiruvengadam,
Aged About 60 years,
S/o. Sri. N.G. Damodaran,
R/at: No.135, ‘B’ 1st Block,
BDA House, Domlur,
BANGALORE-560 082.
(Rep. by Advocate Sri.s.Narasimha) Complainant.
-V/s-
Sri. D. Narayan, Major,
S/o. Sri. Dasappa, No.17,
Kadirappa Main Road, Cox Town,
BANGALORE-560 005. Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.5,00,000/-, are necessary:-
The complainant entered in to an agreement for building construction with the opposite party with respect to his premises No.16, at Shanthi Layout, Near Mixer Factory, Dooravani Nagar Post, Bangalore-560 016 on 07.03.2007 at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per square foot and paid an advance of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party on the threatening of stopping the work extracted money from the complainant in phases which was paid. The opposite party stopped construction in July-2008. When notices were issued on 01.08.2008 and 10.09.2008 the opposite party received Rs.90,000/- on 22.10.2008 on Rs.52,000/- on 11.11.2008, but did not start the work. Hence notice was issued to the opposite party on 14.03.2011 and claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Heard.
2. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is prima facie material to proceed
against the opposite party?
(B) What order?
3. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A) : In the Negative.
Point (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
4. Reading the complaint in conjunction with the documents on record, it is seen that by and between the parties an agreement dated: 07.03.2007 has been entered in to. According to which the opposite party has to construct a building at Rs.60,000/- per squre foot. Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid as an advance on 09.03.2007 and the complainant has to provide certain materials. Even this agreement at clause-3 regarding the amount to be paid is blank column No.10 regarding months it is blank. It is further seen that the opposite party has received on 09.03.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 11.03.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 17.03.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 31.03.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 13.04.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 23.04.007 Rs.70,000/-, on 17.05.2007 Rs.30,000/-, on 29.05.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 09.06.2007 Rs.70,000/-, on 21.06.2007 Rs.30,000/-, on 03.07.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 28.07.2007 Rs.20,000/-, on 07.08.2007 Rs.30,000/-, on 21.08.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 25.08.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 18.09.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 09.10.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 03.12.2007 Rs.70,000/-, on 14.01.2008 Rs.50,000/-, on 16.02.2008 Rs.30,000/-, on 17.03.2007 Rs.50,000/-, on 03.04.2008 Rs.30,000/-, on 26.04.2008 Rs.30,000/-, on 15.05.2008 Rs.40,000/-, on 16.07.2008 Rs.70,000/-, on 17.06.2008 Rs.70,000/-, on 23.07.2008 Rs.96,000/-, on 22.10.2008 Rs.90,000/- and on 11.11.2008 Rs.52,000/-. All the receipts are signed by Rathna except the last two receipts. After 11.11.2008 no transaction took place between the parties. Only on 14.03.2011 a notice was issued to the opposite party and it was returned to the complainant that’s all. From 11.11.2008 no work has been done by the opposite party. There is no submission made in the complaint that on a particular day on 11.11.2008 or subsequently the opposite party agreed to do a particular work. It is not even stated what are the works that has been attended to by the opposite party and what is the work that is due. The only grievance is the opposite party has not completed the building. This is a bald statement. How much the complainant has paid? How much for that work money has been paid? Is not at all stated. Anyway all this requires a detailed cross-examination and detailed scrutiny of evidence. This cannot be done by this Forum since it is vested only with the power of summery jurisdiction to take affidavits and decide. Even otherwise from 11.11.2008 when the last amount is paid the opposite party should have resumed the work on that day, but that has not been done. Hence cause of action arose to the complaint is on 11.11.2008. Hence the complaint should have been filed on or before 10.11.2010 but this complaint is filed on 16.08.2011. Hence it is hopelessly barred by time. No notice will extend or enlarge the limitation. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to the complainant free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
