DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of April 2011
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Date of filing: 15/09/2010
(C.C.No.113/2010)
Chacko
S/o.Chacko
Kallukuzhiyil House
Manissery
Ottaplam Taluk
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.T.V.Pradheesh)
V/s
Ganesan
Naduthodiyil House
East Manissery (PO)
Ottapalam Taluk
Palakkad - Opposite parties
(By Adv.M.Krishnadas)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K. MEMBER
On 29/5/2009 the complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement for constructing a house. The amount was fixed as 1,45,000/- and work to be completed within 3 months. What are the works to be done are specifically stated in the agreement. An amount of Rs.10001/- was given as advance. In total 1,41,731/- was given to the opposite party in installments. But opposite party has not completed the work as promised. Opposite party stopped the construction work without finishing plastering work, Shelf construction, door fixation, stair case construction etc. In this aspect complainant lost an amount of Rs.60,000/- At this situation the complaint sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party stating these facts. In the notice instead of Rs.1,41,731/- mistakenly it was written as Rs.1,32,750/-. Opposite party replied to the notice stating false statements.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.
Opposite party contented that there is no such agreement between the complainant and opposite party. Besides the orally promised work, many extra works have been done by the opposite party. Complainant was irregular in making payments. That is why there occurred delay in completing the construction work. Opposite party has completed all works according to the oral agreement and opposite party is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the extra work. Opposite party says that at the time of making an oral contract for constructing the house the complainant wanted a signed blank stamp paper. Accordingly opposite party gave a signed blank stamp paper which was purchased and kept in the house very earlier. Opposite party says that the date of produced stamp paper is corrected. The stamp paper which is given by the opposite party to the complainant is purchased in the year 2007. But the date of the produced stamp paper is corrected and the agreement is artificial. Opposite party did not give a stamp paper to the complainant in 2009 and not purchased also. So the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 – A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party has not filed any affidavit.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party ?
If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issue 1 & 2
The complaint is regarding the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not completing house construction work as promised. On 29/5/2009 the complainant and opposite party entered into an agreement for constructing a house. The amount was fixed as Rs.1,45,000/- and works to be completed within 3 months. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,41,731/- to the opposite party in installments. Details of the required works are specifically stated in the agreement. But opposite party stopped the work without finishing the entire work as promised in the agreement. To complete the remaining work an amount of Rs.60,000/- is needed. The opposite party says that there was no such written agreement between the complainant and opposite party. Produced agreement is an artificial one. When the complainant wanted a signed stamp paper as a security the opposite party gave the same which was purchased in 2007. On verification it is seen that the date of stamp paper is re-writed. Any how opposite party admits that complainant has give a signed stamp paper by him. Opposite party denies the entries of the agreement and amount written in the back side of the agreement. In order to support the contention no documentary evidence is produced. In their version opposite party admits that they were done many extra works besides the oral contract. Opposite party has no case that complainant did not give the full amount as promised. At the same time opposite party claim Rs.25,000/- for the extra work. But it is not stated that what are the extra work have been done by the opposite party. Opposite party has not stated what is the actual amount received by him from the complainant. On the other hand complainant clearly stated about the remaining works to be done by the opposite party. But complainant has not taken any expert commission to calculate the cost of the remaining work.
On the basis of a guess work an amount of Rs.20,000/- will be sufficient for completing the remaining work.
From the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) for completing the remaining work. Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April 2011.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Stamp Paper worth Rs.50/- Agreement between complainant & O.P.
Ext,A2 – Copy of Advocate notice sent to OP dated.19/2/2010
Ext.A3- Reply to Lawyer notice sent to complainant dated1/3/2010
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs. 1,000/-allowed as cost of the proceedings.
