Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/73/2019

Mr.S.Karunanithi - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Deepavali Rajan - Opp.Party(s)

K.J.Kannikasankareswari

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of filing : 13.07.2019

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:  Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                             Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL : MEMBER

 

 

C.C.No.73 of 2019

Monday, the 20^th day of  February 2023

 

S. Karunanithi

S/o. Shanmugam

Plot No.160, Lakshmi Nagar

Perur, Chettipalayam

Panchayath, Sundakamuthur

Coimbatore.                                                        .. Complainant

                                            

                                             - Vs –

K. Deepavali Rajan

S/o. Kandaswamy

D.No.74, Near Power House

Maachipalayam, Sundarapuram

Coimbatore.                                                       .. Opposite Party

       

 

For the Complainant                        :  Party-in-person

Counsel for the Opposite party        :  Set ex-parte

This complaint came before us for final hearing on 23.09.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the complainant, in-person, and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

 

 R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Sections 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for the following directions to the opposite party:

1. To pay a sum of Rs.24,83,647/- to the complainant with interest;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony; and
3. To pay the cost of the complaint.

 

     2.  The case of the complainant is that he is the owner of the suit property in Plot No.160 Lakshmi Nagar, Perur, Chettipalayam Panchayat, Sundakamuthur, Coimbatore.  He was working as a Professor in the Government Arts College, Coimbatore.  The opposite party is a Builder.  The Opposite party was introduced to the complainant by his son namely, Ajithkumar, who was studying in the Government Arts College, Coimbatore.  The complainant approached the opposite party for construction of his house.  The opposite party assured that he would construct a house with good quality for the complainant and the total amount for construction is Rs.24,53,650/-.  For the purpose of construction, a Construction Agreement dated 12.02.2018 was entered into between the complainant and the opposite party.  In the Agreement entered into between the opposite party and the complainant, the opposite party has clearly given the specifications of work, the material requirements, list of items of works and the estimate of construction.  The payment schedule to be done by the complainant in 6 stages, are as follows:  

 

Stage I	During the course of Basement work	Rs. 5,00,000/-
Stage II	During the course of Lindal Mattam	Rs. 4,00,000/-
Stage III	During the course of Roof Mattam	Rs.5,00,000/-
Stage IV	During the course of Electrical work in the building and puchumaram work	Rs.6,00,000/-
Stage V	During the course of White Wash, lights, Elivason, Electrical, plumbing and other finishing work	Rs.5,00,000/-
Stage VI	Completion of the Building work	Rs.   53,650/-
	Total Amount	Rs.24,53,650/-

 

But, without completing the construction work, the opposite party had demanded an excess amount of Rs.29,97,101/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.24,53,650/-.  In fact, the complainant had applied for a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from HDFC Bank and arranged money for construction of his house.  Apart from the agreed amount, on 10.08.2018, on the instruction of the opposite party, the complainant had purchased Granites for Rs.65,047.12.  Thus, the complainant had paid Rs.30,62,148/- to the opposite party.  Even after receiving the said amount, the opposite party has not completed the construction and left the construction site without any reason whatsoever.  Furthermore, the construction work that has been already done by the opposite party, was also found defective.  The complainant sought the help of another Engineer Mr.N.Ranjit Kumar, Licensed Building Surveyor of SKI Builders and he visited the construction site on 05.05.2019 and stated that 1890 x 900 sq.ft. area alone is constructed by the opposite party, instead of 1890 x 1550 sq.ft.  Further, they estimated the value of the building as Rs.17,01,000/- for 900 sq.ft.  Therefore, the complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs.13,61,148/-.  The following defects were found in the building :-

1.  Low quality Kotayam Cement/ lime power is used in the walls.    Inappropriate work was done.
2.  Surkhi concrete was mixed in improper manner.
3. Electrical wires are carelessly left out.
4. Carpentry work was inaccurate and unfinished.  Garnish and Painting were not done.
5.  Tiles were not properly laid.
6.  Outer electrical board was not covered or box not laid.  It is approachable to children and rainy season will affect the people.
7.  Inexpedient plumbing work.  Because they want to charge extra money from the building owner.
8.  The cement mortar ratio of mixture was in an inapproachable manner while roof plastering was improperly laid. 
9.  Electrical junction boxes are not closed.
10.  Granites have been laid in an inefficient manner.  Mixed ratio of  laying granites was false mixing.
11.  Surkhi concrete was done in an inappropriate way.
12. Unsupported brick work was followed in all walls.
13. Un-technical electrical work was used.
14.  Working and fixing of carpentry work done in an inappropriate manner.
15. Carpentry work was not done properly.
16. Colour combination of granites not properly laid. Granites were laid in an up and down position.
17. The electrical motor was not fixed and the wire was not closed properly.  The bore well and over head tank connection of pipes was not laid.  But, hoes were used for alteration.
18. Water leaking on wall and roof areas.

 

Since the construction has not been completed and the opposite party has left the construction incomplete in the middle, the present complaint has been filed for the relief stated supra.

 

      3.   Though notice has been served on the opposite party, he has not appeared and hence he was set ex-parte. 

 

      4.  In order to prove the case, the complainant, along with proof affidavit, has filed 6 documents and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A6.  

 

     5.  The sum and substance of the case of the complainant is that he has engaged the opposite party for the purpose of construction of his house with good quality.  For this purpose, the complainant and the opposite party had also entered into a Construction Agreement on 12.02.2018.  In the said Agreement, the specifications of work, the material requirements, list of items required for work and the estimate of construction was specifically mentioned.  The total amount for construction was mentioned as Rs.24,53,650/-.  But the opposite party had demanded an excess amount of Rs.29,97,101/- as against the agreed amount of Rs.24,53,650/-.  The complainant applied for loan from HDFC Bank and paid a sum of Rs.30,62,148/-, which is more than that of the agreed amount of Rs.24,53,650/-.  But, all of a sudden the opposite party abandoned the work in the middle and left the site.  Therefore, to assess the value of the work which has not been completed, the complainant engaged one Mr.N.Ranjit Kumar, Licensed Building Surveyor of SKI Builders.  The Surveyor visited the construction site on 05.05.2019 and found that construction has been made for 1890 x 900 sq.ft. area alone, instead of 1890 x 1550 sq.ft.  He estimated the value of the building as Rs.17,01,000/- for 900 sq.ft. and hence he came to the conclusion that the complainant has paid an excess amount of Rs.13,61,148/-.  He also pointed out the defects in the building.  Hence, the complainant has come forward with the present complaint seeking to direct the opposite party to refund the entire sum of Rs.24,83,647/-.  But, in our considered opinion, when it is the case of the complainant, as per the report of the Building Surveyor the estimated value of the construction is Rs.17,01,000/-, the question of seeking the entire sum of Rs.24,83,647/- is not justifiable.  Though the report of the licensed building surveyor of SKI Builders was marked as an Exhibit, the opposite party is not a party to the said document.  The said report is only a self serving document and therefore the same cannot be relied upon to accept the case of the complainant.    To prove the value of the construction done by the opposite party, the complainant ought to have taken an Application before this Commission for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property, along with a Civil Engineer to assess the value of the construction made, after issuing a notice to the opposite party.  But, he has miserably failed to do so.  Therefore, by merely relying upon the pleadings and documents produced by the complainant, this Commission cannot grant any relief to the complainant.

 

      6.  In the result, the Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                  R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Sl.No.       Date                 Description of Documents

 

Ex.A1        12.02.2018       Agreement between the opposite party and

  the complainant

 

Ex.A2        18.09.2018       Agreement for receiving the balance

  amount entered by both the parties.

 

Ex.A3        12.02.2018       Receipt of payment made by the

                        To               complainant to the opposite party

                11.09.2018

 

Ex.A4        10.08.2018       Receipt of Jain Granites

 

Ex.A5        04.05.2019       The Report of SKI Builders

 

Ex.A6                                Photo copies of SKI Builders with Bill

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

                                                NIL   

 

 

 

 

R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No. 73 of 2019

HON’BLE  JUSTICE

THIRU R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

         In the result, the Complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

 

MEMBER                 PRESIDENT             

20.02.2023             20.02.2023