Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/591/2011

R.SURESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

FRANCIS - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. P. KUMARAN

13 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

                                 Present:  Thiru.J. JAYARAM,                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                                                 Tmt. P. BAKIAVATHY,                        MEMBER.  

                                                                                               F.A.No.591/2011

(Against the order in C.C.No.123/2007, dated 03.05.2011 on the file of District Forum, Coimbatore)  

DATED THIS THE 13^th DAY OF APRIL 2015

R. Suresh Kumar,

S/o. R. Rangasamy,

No.3/112, New No.3/68,

Tholampalayam – Post,

Karamadai – Via,

Coimbatore –641 113.                                           Appellant/Opposite Party  

                                                                                         

                    Vs

Francis,

S/o. Sathislax,

No.3/155, Air Force Colony,

Kangayampalayam, Sulur,

Coimbatore.                                                           Respondent/Complainant  

                           

Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party   :   M/s. P. Kumanan,  Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant   :   M/s. V. Balaji, Advocate.        

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 09.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:

                                    ORDER

THIRU.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.             This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.123/2007, dated 03.05.2011, allowing the complaint.

2.          The case of the complainant is that he entered into an agreement for construction of a house, with the opposite party on 08.06.2006 for Rs.4,90,000/- and the stipulated period of completion of the construction is six months from the date of commencement of construction on 22.05.2006.  Even after receipt of payment of Rs.3,33,600/-, the opposite party did not complete the proportionate cost of construction and the opposite party abandoned the construction of work.  The complainant being an ex-serviceman he took up the matter to the Ex-serviceman Welfare Association for redressal and after negotiations, the opposite party agreed to depute three civil engineers of the Association to assess the work completed and the work pending to be completed and the engineers filed a report assessing the value of the work done at Rs.3,50,000/-and the incomplete work at Rs.1,40,000/- and on these terms, an agreement was entered on 14.12.2006 and as per the agreement, the complainant immediately paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  Though the opposite party received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant as per the agreement Ex A2, the opposite party did not carry out any work which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite party to refund excess amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the complainant together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-for damages of articles at the complainant’s house and Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for expenses incurred by way of rent, interest, hike in building materials for the completion of incomplete work, mental agony and sufferings and loss sustained by the complainant and to pay costs.  

3.              According to the opposite party, he received the payment periodically to the tune of Rs.3,33,600/- and since the complainant did not pay further amount, he could not continue the construction and subsequently the complainant used the influence of some big shots and the opposite party was forced to sign the stamp papers under threat and coercion and an agreement dated 14.12.2006 was created alleging that the opposite party received further sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. The construction could not be continued since the complainant did not make further payments and there is no deficiency in service on his part.

4.        The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and passed an order directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.1000/-.  Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.    

5.           When the appeal was pending enquiry, 5 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits B1 to B5 on the side of the appellant/opposite party in the appeal.   

6.         Admittedly, the opposite party/appellant has received a sum of Rs.3,33,600/- from the complainant and as per the report filed by the engineers appointed by the Ex-servicemen Welfare Association by consent of both parties, the value of the completed construction is assessed at Rs.3,50,000/- In this context, we have to ascertain whether an amount of Rs.50,000/- was subsequently paid to the opposite party by the complainant.  The District Forum has come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party and we find no materials on record to decide the issue otherwise. Therefore, the amount received by the opposite party from the complainant works out to Rs.3,33,600/- + Rs.50,000/- = Rs.3,83,600/- as stated above. The cost of construction done so far is Rs.3,50,000/- and therefore the excess amount received by the opposite party from the complainant is Rs.33,600/- only which is the amount payable by the opposite party to the complainant.  Therefore, we hold that the opposite party is liable to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.33,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint (22.02.2007) till realization.  We feel that award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by the District Forum for mental agony etc ., is very much on the higher side and so we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.25,000/-and accordingly the order of the District Forum has to be modified.

7.           In the result, the appeal is partly allowed modifying the order of the District Forum as follows:

           1)  The opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.33,600/- ( Rupees thirty three thousand and six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint (22.02.2007) till realization.

           2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  as compensation for mental agony and sufferings and

           3)  To  pay costs of Rs.1000/-.(Rupees one thousand only)          

                  No order as to costs in this appeal.

                  Time for compliance – two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

 

P.BAKIAVATHY,                                                                 J. JAYARAM,                       

    MEMBER.                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT/OPPOSITE PARTY.

Ex B1   17.08.2007   Copy of order of the District Forum, Coimbatore passed in

                                  C.C.No.123/2007, dated 17.08.2007

Ex B2   13.06.2006   Copy of construction agreement

Ex B3   08.12.2006   Copy of construction agreement

Ex B4   28.12.2006   Copy of complaint given by the complainant to the Police

                                   Station and the receipt issued by the Police Station.  

Ex B5                         Copy of written arguments submitted by the opposite party

                                   before the District Forum. 

 

P.BAKIAVATHY,                                                                 J. JAYARAM,                       

    MEMBER.                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.