DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June 2015
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 11/07/2014
(C.C.No.100/2014)
Hajira,
D/o.Vella Ravuthar,
Nehru Colony, Kunnathurmedu,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.C.Ramadas)
Vs
Jayakumar,
Valiyaparambil Veedu,
Nambulli Pura,
Mundur, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv.K.V.Sujith)
O R D E R
By Smt.Shiny.P.R. President.
Brief facts of the complaint.
On 12/12/2013 complainant entered into an agreement with opposite party for the structure construction of 500 sq. feet residential house as per the plan approved by Palakkad Municipality for Rs. Four lakhs. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1, 50,000/ as 1st installment to the opposite party on the same day itself. In the agreement the time of the completion of the work was fixed on 31/1/2014. But opposite party did not do the work as per terms and conditions of agreement. He constructed only 8 RCC column footings and further stopped working. Then the complainant completed the remaining work of foundation at her own expenses in order to get sanction of first stage financial support from the Government. Inspite of the repeated demands, opposite party did not repay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- nor complete the structure of the house. Finally complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite party. But he did not reply for the same. Opposite party was a Government servant at the time of entering into the contract. As the construction cost of building increased, complainant could not complete her house construction. Complainant submitted that by the acts of opposite party, complainant sustained mental agony and huge financial loss. Complainant prays for an order directing opposite party to pay Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith 12% interest, Rs.10,000/- for cheating and Rs.10,000/- for compensation.
Complainant was admitted and was issued notice to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed his version denying all the allegations levelled against him. Opposite party submitted that he was neither entered into an agreement with complainant nor received any amount from the complainant. The agreement produced alongwith complaint is a concocted and fabricated one. The signature of the opposite party in the agreement is also forged one. Opposite party further submitted that opposite party before entering into the Govt. Service was a contractor and one Mr.Salim who is complainant’s brother’s son was a supervisor working under this opposite party. Salim requested opposite party to guide him in his construction work and as per his request opposite party went to the site to guide Salim without any remuneration. If Salim has made any misrepresentation to the complainant, opposite party is not responsible for that. The complaint filed in order to harass opposite party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of opposite party.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of complainant. Expert commission was also taken and report was marked as Ext.C1. Opposite party did not file chief affidavit.
Issues are to be considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2.If so, what is the relief ?
Issues 1 & 2
Complainant heard. We have perused the documents on record. It is seen that Ext.A1 agreement was duly signed by both parties i.e. opposite party and complainant. The agreement and signature of opposite party were disputed by the opposite party. Opposite party did not take any steps to prove that the disputed agreement was forged one. On the perusal of Ext.A1, it reveals that on the agreement date itself opposite party received Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant. Opposite party admitted in the version that he was a contractor before entering into the Govt. service and acted only as a guide to Mr.Salim at the time of construction of the alleged house. But opposite party did not examine Mr.Salim as witness to prove his contentions. In these circumstances we cannot disbelieve the allegations of the complainant. As per Ext.C1 commission report 15% of the work was completed costing about Rs.95,000/-. Complainant admitted in her complaint that 8 RCC column footing were done by the opposite party and submitted that the rest of the work was completed by the complainant herself at her own expenses. Commissioner reported that nearly Rs.25,000/- is required for the 8 RCC column footing. Hence the balance of Rs.1,25,000/- is to be paid to the complainant by opposite party. Non completion of the structural construction of house after receiving the consideration within stipulated time amounts to deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Opposite party did not adduce any evidence to the contrary to evidence adduced by the complainant.
In the result we are of the opinion that opposite party commits deficiency in service. Hence complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty five thousand only) towards the balance amount to be paid, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of proceedings to complainant. Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2015.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of agreement
Ext.A2 – Copy of building agreement
Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice and postal receipt
Ext.A4 – Acknowledgement card
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commissioner Report
C1 – Dr.Shashi Dharan
Cost
Rs.3,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
