Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/587/2012

SARAVANAN, PROPRIETOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GANGA RANGANATHAN - Opp.Party(s)

SAI BARATH AND ILAM

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                           BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                              Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 587/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.77/2010 dated 19.12.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chengalpattu ]

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

Mr. Saravanan, Proprietor

M/s Andavar Home Creators

No.35A, Andavar Shrishti, 2^nd Floor

Pillayar Koil street, Rajaji Nagar

Kottivakkam

Chennai 600 041                                                                                            ..Appellant/opp.party

                                         Vs

Mrs.Ganga Ranganathan

W/o Ranganathan

No.99, 4^th Main Road, Krishna Nagar

Perumbakkam

Chennai 600 100                                                                                    ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party     : M/s Sai Barath

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : M/s K.P.Kiran Rao

 

    The opposite party is the appellant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu in CC.No. 77/2010 dated 19.12.2011.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chengalpattu, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.            The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant/Respondent entered into construction agreement for the construction of the house to the total area of 2334 sqft for the amount of Rs. 11,67,000/- on 6.2.2005 and the complainant had paid Rs.15,20,120/- and the opposite party did not complete the work and no intention to complete the same and construction was found defective with seepage caused electrical shock and used imperial materials for the construction in the wood work and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed alleging deficiency in leaving incomplete building for Rs.5 lakhs and claiming Rs.2,50,000/- each for mental agony and unfair trade practice and Rs.5000/- as cost.

2.         The opposite party denied the allegation contending that the complainant never paid the extra amount and she has to pay balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- for the extra work done and other allegations are false.

3.           Based on both sides materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum by taking into consideration of the surveyor’s report under Ex.C.1 and other materials allowed the complaint directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service for incomplete works and also Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony.

3.            Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party/appellant filed this appeal stating that the District Forum, erroneously allowed the complaint and the complaint is barred by limitation and the alleged defects are not at all in existence and the defects of seepage was caused by engaging 3^rd parties for laying weathering course and the complaint was falsely given.

4.           We have heard both sides arguments and carefully considered all the materials in this regard.

5.       It is the admitted case of both sides, that the complainant had entrusted construction works with the opposite party by entering an agreement and the complainant alleged that the work was not completed as per agreement for Rs.3,50,000/-. Whereas the appellant contended that he had done excess work for Rs. 1,50,000/- which was not paid by the complainant and alleged defects are not due to him but by engaging the 3^rd party to finish the work relating to roof which caused seepage and the complaint is barred by limitation. While considering these contentions, District Forum has not discussed anything about question of limitation and no such plea was seems to have been raised in the written version before the District Forum. Further the District Forum considered all the relevant materials and came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the basis of Surveyor’s report and thereby the District Forum observed that the opposite party found deficiency in service for incomplete work of building and seepage and leakage of water and electric shock due to improper laying of ceiling in the 1^st Floor, prove the evidence. These contentions were not repudiated by any contra evidence by the appellants and no steps were taken to prove his case that there was no deficiency in service on their part, In those circumstances we find no materials or merits in the appeal to accept the contentions of the appellants and thereby this appeal deserved to be dismissed and as for as the quantum of award is concerned, since the District Forum directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh for incomplete works and improper laying of ceiling, on the basis of Ex.C.1, the complainant already alleged that he had paid excess of Rs.3 lakhs, but the opposite party alleged that the complainant as to pay Rs.1,50,000/- in excess for excess work completed for which no documents has been filed and only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony was awarded by taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the ordeal undergone by the complainant, those amounts cannot be considered as abnormal or excessive and in those circumstances, we are of the view that there is no need for any modification in the quantum of amount already awarded and thereby the District Forum order in toto to be sustained accordingly,

     In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, in CC 77/2010 dated 19.12.2011.  

   No order as to costs in this appeal

  The directions of the District Forum shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                           PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER