THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

 Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

CC No208 /2011

Wednesday , the 30^th   day of November, 2011.

Petitioner                                              :           Thomas Joseph,

                                                                        Vezhambasseril House,

                                                                        Aanikkadu P.O

                                                                        Kottayam.

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                     :           George Mathew,

                                                                        Maniyangattu House,

Manalingal P.O

Akalakunnam,

Kottayam.

 

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

 

            Case of the petitioner filed on 9..8..2011 is as follows:

Petitioner entrusted the construction of the building of the petitioner with the opposite party. For execution  of   work petitioner executed an agreement with the opposite party on  15..5..2010. As per   terms of agreement  opposite party is bound to construct 1200 Sq.ft building for an amount of Rs. 12lakhs. As per the agreement opposite party accepted Rs. 9 lakhs from petitioner   on different dates. But after six months of expiry of the agreed period. Opposite party has not completed the construction work. Opposite party in deviation to the agreement as 4^th installment,  without completing the stage as stated in the agreement,  accepted an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs.  According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not completing work as agreed amounts to deficiency in service. Petitioner on 5..5..2011 issued a lawyers notice demanding to complete the work as agreed within 30 days. But   opposite party has not acted in accordance with the agreement. So, the petitioner prays for a direction,  to   opposite party,  to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,77,000/- with 12% 

-2-

interest. Petitioner also claims refund of Rs. 1,83,750/- with 12% interest and cost of the proceedings.

            Notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and suggested.  A settlement as per the settlement opposite party is ready to complete the entire work on receipt of balance  amount of Rs. 3 lakh. As directed petitioner deposited Rs. 3 lakh before the Fora. But after the deposit of the amount opposite party has not appeared before the fora or filed any version. So, opposite party is set ex-parte. Since opposite party is ex-arte fora directed refund of amount to petitioner .

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Relief and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner Ext. A1 to A8

  documents on the side of the petitioner and C1 commission report.

            In the    lack of contra evidence we are constrain  to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. C1 commission report. The agreement between the petitioner and the opposite party produced is marked as Ext. A1. As per

Ext. A1 opposite party agreed to construct the residential building  having 1200 Sq.ft

 for Rs. 12 lakhs. In the  reverse side of Ext. A1 as part payment  in 4 installments

opposite party accepted Rs. 9 lakhs .   The expert commissioner appointed by the fora filed a report,    same is marked as Ext. C1. From Ext. C1 report it can be seen that as per the government rate of year 2010,  an amount of Rs. 2,26,008/- is needed for completion of the entire work of the residential building. Further he reported that additional amount of Rs. 2 lakh is actually needed if it is constructed by the petitioner himself.   From the report it can be seen that for  plumping and electrical works an    additional amount of Rs. 13,659/- and    Rs. 29,900/- is needed .       Petitioner also

-3-

produced a rent deed  executed between the petitioner   and one  Sindhu Zacarias. From Ext. A8 rent deed  it can be seen that petitioner is now paying a rent of Rs. 2,500/- to the building owner. So, in total for the act deficiency committed by the opposite party petitioner sustained a loss of Rs. 5,62,777/-.  As commission batta petitioner repaid  an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the expert commissioner. In our view

act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the finding in point No. 1 opposite party is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 5,62,777/- as compensation. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of   order. If the order is not complied as directed award amount will carry 9 % interest from  date of filing of   petition till realization.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

Ext. A1:            Agreement Dtd: 15..5..2010

Ext. A2:            Building permit Dtd: 10..8..2010

Ext. A3:            Copy of lawyers notice Dtd: 5..5..2011

Ext. A4:            Postal Ad card and postal receipt.

Ext. A5:            Estimate given by the Krishna Ceramics and Electricals.

Ext. A6:            Estimate Dtd: 8..11..2011 given by the Krishna Ceramics & Electricals

Ext. A7:            Labour charge issued by Sangeetha Electricals.

 

C1:                   Commission report filed by Expert Commissioner.

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent