STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 247 OF 2014
AGAINST
CC NO.52 OF 2012, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between :
Sri Kammari Brahma Chary,
S/o Ramaiah, aged about 40 years,
Occ : Carpenter, R/o H.No. 8-1-59/106,
Karmanghat, Hyderabad , R. R. District
Presently residing at H.No.8-113, Srinivasa Nagar,
Siddartha High School, HMT Chintal,
Hyderabad – 500 054 .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Dr. P. Parajatha, W/o Dr. Ganeshwar
Aged about 54 years, Occ : Doctor,
R/o Plot No. 10, Telephone Colony,
Kothapet, Hyderabad .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant/opposite party : M/s. K. Ramanjaneyulu
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. N. Srinivasa Rao
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Sixth Day of September
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party to set aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2012 made in CC No. 52/2012 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she entered into an agreement with the opposite party carpenter on 11.06.2011 to complete the wood work at her newly constructed house on or before 21.07.2011@ Rs.12 per square inch and paid Rs.1,49,500/-from 17.06.2011 to 04.10.2011 on various dates and if the work was not completed on 21.07.2011 a cutting of 10% in the total value of the work w.e.f. 01.08.2011. Despite assurance again on 18.08.2011, the opposite party carpenter did not complete the wood work even on the date of housewarming ceremony on 29.11.2011 and hence she sustained loss of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the wastage of the wood. Thereby, she got issued legal notice on 02.12.2011, for which, the OP carpenter issued false reply. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.1,49,500/- which was collected from her, Rs.3,00,000/- towards wastage of material, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.
4) Though Sri K. Venkat Reddy, advocate, filed Vakalat on 07.06.2012 but even after availing 12 adjournments also, did not file counter and the opposite party was set exparte on 06.12.2012.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-11 and she also submitted her written arguments. Heard.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to refund Rs.1,49,500/- along with interest 12% PA from 20.04.2012, from the date of complaint till realization and pay costs of Rs.3,000/- within 30 days.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8) Counsel on both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard the counsel on both sides.
9) The points that arises for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/opposite party entered into an agreement with the respondent/complainant on 11.06.2011 for carving wood work around the doors of the newly constructed house of the respondent/complainant on or before 21.07.2011 @ Rs.12 per square inch and if the work was not completed on or before 21.07.2011 a cutting of 10% would be imposed on the agreement rate w.e.f. 01.08.2011. There is also no dispute that respondent/ complainant paid Rs.1,49,500/-from 17.06.2011 to 04.10.2011 on various dates.
11) The main dispute is with regard to incomplete work to be completed by the appellant/opposite party and the payment of balance amount to be paid by the respondent/complainant.
12) The first and foremost contention of the appellant Carpenter is that the District Forum failed to consider quantum of work done by the him and the respondent did not produce any evidence to prove incomplete work. It appears, Ex. A-1 is incomplete agreement. It is not signed by both parties. It is obtained only from the appellant Carpenter to abide by the terms and conditions to complete the work. The said agreement does not speak what is the total carving wood work that would be completed by the appellant carpenter and what is the total amount that would be paid by the respondent/complainant for the same. We have closely perused the documents filed by the appellant and the averments on both sides. In the legal notice , the respondent/ complainant did not disclose what is the total carving wood work that would be completed by the respondent except stating that even 1/4th of the work was not completed but the appellant carptenter taken total amount. At least she did not disclose what is the total area for carving out wood work in square inches to arrive at a conclusion by this Commission. The respondent is alleging that even 1/4th of the work was not completed by the respondent carpenter.. On the other hand, appellant Carpenter argued that he completed 70% of the work. Further, he argued that Wood Lion Idol which was completed by him is approximately 4080 sq. inches and the rate fixed for Lion Wood is at Rs.12/- per sq. inch which comes to Rs.48,960/- and that the three Main doors which was completed by him is approximately 18,000 sq. inches which comes to Rs.2,64,960/- and fitting charges of doors is extra which comes to Rs.36,000/- ( each Rs.12,000/-) thus the respondent/complainant liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,960/-towards total work and he completed 70% work and the value is approximately Rs.2,10,000/- but the respondent/complainant paid Rs.1,49,500/-and hence respondent/complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.60,500/- and he is ready to complete remaining work if the respondent/complainant paid the balance amount for the work completed by him. Naturally, counsel for the respondent denied the same. But it was confirmed by both sides that the appellant Carpenter received an amount of Rs.1,49,500/- from the respondent/complainant and he has attended for some work. There is no evidence on record in support of their respective contentions with regard to total work, completion of work and pending work. No technical expert was appointed to assess the total work, completed work and the loss sustained by the respondent/complainant. In the absence of the above details it is not possible to arrive at right conclusion. Further counsel for the appellant/opposite party prayed for remanding of the matter. It appears, the dispute has arisen after attending some work by the appellant carpenter.
13). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant, this Commission is of the opinion by remanding the matter for fresh disposal after giving an opportunity to adduce evidence on both sides, if any, with regard to total work, completed work and incomplete work. it will meet the ends of justice. This Commission answered Point No. 1, accordingly.
14). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is disposed of remanding the matter back to the District Forum for fresh disposal. The District Forum is directed to list the matter on 22.09.2017 and give an opportunity to both sides to adduce their respective evidence, if any, and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 22.09.2017. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 06..09.2017.
