BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
Thursday, the 5th day of May 2016
First Appeal No.20/2015
V. Pugazhandi, son of Vijayan,
No.84, Kamaraj Salai, Puducherry – 13.
…. Appellant
Vs.
J. Sudagar, son of Janarthanan,
No.8, Johanpaul Nagar, Puducherry – 4.
Consumer Complaint No.85 of 2009
J. Sudagar, son of Janarthanan
No.8, Johnpaul Nagar
Puducherry.
… Complainant
Vs.
V. Pugazhandi, son of Vijayan
No.84, Kamaraj Salai, Puducherry – 13.
… Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE THIRU K. VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
Tmt. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
Thiru S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru S. Parimalam, Advocate
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Ex parte
O R D E R
(By Justice Thiru K. Venkataraman, President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry dated 15.09.2015 made in C.C. No. 85/2009.
2. The Opposite Party therein is the appellant herein and the complainant thereon is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been arrayed in the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. The complainant has put forth the following facts before the District Forum, Puducherry which in nutshell are stated hereunder.
The complainant and the Opposite Party entered into an agreement on 05.02.2007 for construction of a house at plot No.8, John Paul Nagar, Pondicherry for a consideration of Rs.9,39,600/-. The complainant has paid the said amount on instalments to the opposite party. The Opposite Party also demanded further sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs to finish the house and the complainant has paid the same to the opposite party. On 20.11.2008 final payment was received by the opposite party and the building was handed over to the complainant. After two months, the complainant found several damages in the house. This is nothing but deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is laid before the District Forum.
5. The Reply Version was filed by the opposite party setting out the following facts.
The damages pointed out by the complainant are invented for the purpose of this complaint. Though the opposite party advised the complainant for pile foundation and explained the reasons thereon, the complainant refused to accept the same. From the beginning, the complainant and his father were aiming at spending less amount only for the construction. After the building reached the lintel level, the complainant has changed his mind out of flash. Since the complainant has changed his idea from time to time, the opposite party has faced lot of difficulties in finishing the work and also he has to carry out additional works beyond the specifications agreed between them. In view of the additional work carried out, the opposite party sought for additional amount. The opposite party used quality materials for construction of the building and hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and one Balajee Venkateswarulu, Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry was examined as CW2. Exs.C1 to C4 were filed and marked through him. On behalf of the opposite party, the opposite party examined himself as RW1 and Exs.R1 and R2 have been filed and marked.
7. The District Forum framed three points for consideration.
On the first point – Whether the complainant is a Consumer – the District Forum is found that the complainant is a Consumer.
On Point No.2 – Whether the opposite has committed negligent act and deficiency in service – the District Forum found that the opposite party was negligent in some works carried out by him in the building of the complainant.
On Point No.3 – The District Forum held that the complaint is to be allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- being the cost of rectification of the defects in the building; a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the negligent act and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/ as cost.
8. As stated already, the present appeal is filed against the said order.
9. It is not in dispute that the complainant as well as the opposite party entered into an agreement under Ex.C1 dated 5.2.2007 and that the complainant has paid the entire amount demanded by the opposite party for the construction of the building and that the building was handed over to the complainant after payment of the full amount to the opposite party. The only contention raised on behalf of the complainant is that after taking over possession of the premises, the complainant found certain defects / damages in the building and hence, he is entitled for the compensation.
10. Before the District Forum, an Expert namely, a Civil Engineer from Public Works Department, Pondicherry was appointed to inspect the building and give a report about the construction of house. The said Engineer namely, Balajee Venkateswarulu, Junior Engineer, Public Works Department, Pondicherry who has been examined as CW2 visited the house and filed the report Ex.C4. From the report, it could be seen that there is no major defect in the building except the crack in the cupboard. Even with regard to the same, CW2 opined that the crack in the cupboard portion is not a structural crack / defect and since the owner of the house insisted on more space at the living / hall area, 4 ½" thick wall was laid instead of 9" thick wall usually laid monolithic. It has also been found by him that during the course of construction the water stagnating from the adjoining land would have seeped into the walls resulting in dampness and thereafter peeling of paint. The Engineer also opined that it is only a hairline cracks found in the complainant's building. Thus, we are constrained to hold that the construction put up by the opposite party does not show any much defects.
11. However, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.31,500/- to the complainant being the cost for rectification of defects in the building. In our considered view, the said finding is not based on evidence. In fact, the reading of the entire report of CW2 will amply establish that the opposite party has put up the construction in a proper way and that the cracks found in the cupboard also has been reasonably explained by CW2. Therefore, awarding of the said amount in our considered view is not proper.
12. Further, award of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant by the District Forum on the ground of negligent act on the part of the opposite party is also not proper. Therefore, in our considered view, the District Forum has not properly considered the matter while awarding the above referred amount to the complainant.
13. However, the opposite party was present before the State Commission at the time of arguments by the Counsel appearing for the appellant. When asked whether he can pay some amount to the complainant, he has fairly accepted to pay a sum of Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant. We appreciate the gesture shown by the opposite party. Therefore, we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant within 15 days from this date. The said amount could be sent to the complainant by way of Demand Draft.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and however, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 5th day of May 2016.
(Justice K. VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K. RITHA)
MEMBER
(S. TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
