KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 401/2019
JUDGMENT DATED: 08.11.2024
(Against the Order in C.C. 219/2018 of DCDRC, Kollam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Bineesh B.H., Haridas Bhavan, Kattadi, Pooyappally, Kottarakkara.
(By Adv. N.G. Mahesh)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
Deepa C.R., Poykavila Veedu, Kottarakkara, Meeyanoor P.O., Kollam-691 537.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT
The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in C.C. No. 219/2018 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short “the District Commission”).
2. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant in connection with the construction of a building. The respondent executed an agreement with the appellant for the construction of a portion of the house, wherein the respondent was residing, for a total consideration of Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only). The respondent had paid Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh only). However, the construction was not completed within the period stipulated in the agreement or thereafter. There was also deviation from the terms of the agreement in the matter of construction. The materials used for the construction were also low quality materials. The respondent claimed that an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) was required for the completion of the remaining work.
3. The appellant did not appear before the District Commission even though the notice was served on the appellant. The appellant also did not file any version.
4. The respondent filed proof affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A7 were also marked for the respondent. An expert commission was appointed by the District Commission to inspect the site. The expert commissioner, after inspecting the site, filed a report with the photographs taken by the commissioner. The commission report and the photographs were marked as Exhibit C1 series. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission passed the order impugned.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not aware that the notice tendered was the notice issued from the District Commission and hence the appellant could not appear before the District Commission and file the version. It appears from Exhibit C1 report of the expert commissioner that before inspecting the site, the commissioner had issued notice to the appellant. The said notice was received by the appellant as per the acknowledgment card produced by the commissioner along with Exhibit C1 report. This would show that though sufficient opportunity was granted to the appellant to appear before the District Commission and contest the matter, the appellant did not incline to contest the matter. Therefore, the above submission in this regard cannot be sustained.
7. We have gone through the proof affidavit filed by the respondent and Exhibits A1 to A7 and Exhibit C1 series. The contention in the complaint was reiterated by the respondent in the proof affidavit as well. It is in the evidence of the respondent that the respondent had to shift to a rented premises by paying a rent of Rs. 4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per month in connection with the construction of the building. Since the construction was not completed within the stipulated period, she had to continue in the rented house and in the said circumstances alone, she sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The further evidence of the respondent is that she had to spend Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) for completing the construction. Since the respondent was not cross-examined, her evidence remained as unchallenged testimony. Exhibit C1 commission report would also support the evidence of the respondent in this regard. In the absence of any evidence contrary to or inconsistent with the evidence of the respondent, the District Commission rightly accepted the evidence of the respondent and found that the amount claimed by the respondent for completing the construction was reasonable. The District Commission found that even though Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh only) was the amount fixed for completing the construction, the respondent had paid only Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakh only). Therefore, the District Commission deducted the difference in the amount, which would come to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only), from the estimated/claimed amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) and ordered an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) towards the cost of construction of the remaining portion of the building. The District Commission also ordered a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
8. Having gone through the evidence on record, we do not find anything to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission, including the compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed and the order dated 20.05.2019 passed by the District Commission in C.C. No. 219/2018 stands confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement.
JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
jb RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
