DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th day of August  2012

Present  : Smt.Seena H, President

             : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member  

             : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member            Date of filing :  02/06/2011

                                                (C.C.No.84/2011)           

1. Balakrishnan Nair,

    President,

    Sree Panickar Sahayam,

    Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

    Kazhani Amsam, Padur,

    Alathur, Palakkad

2. K.Devadas,

   Vice President

   Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

   Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

   Alathur

3. K.Ramadas,

    Vice President

    Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

    Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

    Alathur

4.Achuthan Nair,

   Secretary,

   Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

   Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

   Alathur

5. Sreenivasan,

    Joint Secretary,

    Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

    Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

    Alathur

6. M.Bhakthavalsalan,

    Joint Secretary,

    Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

    Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

    Alathur

7. V.Krishnan Unni Nair,

    Treasurer,

    Padur Kshethra Samrakshna Samithi,

    Kazhani Amsam, Padur Desam,

     Alathur                                                               -        Complainants

(By Adv.P.Vasavan)

V/s

K.Narayanan,

S/o.Velumoopan,

Kasuthodiyil Veedu,

S.R.K.Nagar,

Post Krishnambalar,

Ottapalam, Palakkad                                     -        Opposite party           

(By Adv.K.R.Kochunarayanan)

O R D E R

            By  Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant :

The complaint is filed by the President, Secretary & Other office bearers of  a temple committee. The committee entrusted  the work of laying stones in the temple premises  with the opposite party vide agreement dated 12/7/2008. Total consideration was Rs.9 lakhs. As per the agreement work has to be completed on or before 1/1/2010. Complainant has given total amount of Rs.9,40,000/- to the opposite party. Though complainants performed their part of the contract, opposite party failed to complete the work. In order to complete the work within time, complainant voluntarily agreed to pay opposite party an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- vide agreement dated 26/9/2010. Even then opposite party has not fulfilled his part of the obligation thereby causing discomfort to the complainants as well as the devotees. Complainants could not celebrate the temple festival due to the act of opposite party.  Hence the compliant. Complainants pray for an order for directing the opposite party for completing the work as per the contract and pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party filed version contending the following. Agreement between the parties is admitted by opposite party. But opposite party at the time of agreement itself has stated that an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- is necessary for completing the work. Complainants made believe the opposite party that the excess amount will be paid during the progress of the work. Opposite party himself has spend from his pocket an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- for the work. Opposite party was always ready to complete the work provided complainants  pays the amount spend by the opposite party and the amount for the completion of the work.  Criminal cases are pending against the complainants and the present complaint is filed with an ulterior motive to defend the said cases. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A4,  Ext.B1 to B3 and the testimony of PW1 and DW1.

Issues for consideration

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of  opposite party ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to  ?

Issue No.1 & 2

Opposite party admitted the agreement executed  between the parties, but opposite party has informed the complainants that work entrusted   will have to be completed on or before 1/1/2010. The agreement dated 12/7/2009 is marked as Ext.A1. On 26/12/2009 the total payment made is Rs.5,50,000/-.  It is to be noted that as per the agreement date of completion of the work is 1/01/2010. Opposite party admits that there  is some work pending, the completion for which amount has to be  paid by the complainant. Without making payments promptly complainant cannot say that opposite party has not done his part. Further after the agreement date also payments is seen received by the opposite party. Complainant further stated that an additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid to the complainant in order to make the opposite party complete the work fast. The explanation provided  in the affidavit seen otherwise. In the 2^nd agreement dated 26/9/10 which is marked as Ext.A2, it is stated that ]Wn ]qÀ¯oIcn¨p Xcp¶Xn\v 2..mw I£nbmb IcmdpImc³ H³]Xv e£wcq] ]cym]vXaà F¶v tXm¶pIbm H¶ce£w sImSp¡phm³ Xocpam\saSp¯p.

The definite contention of the opposite party is that he has already stated to the complainants that the consideration stated in the agreement is not adequate for completion of the work. Ext.A2 gives credibility to the contention of opposite party. Though complainants has stated that opposite party has not completed the work as per the agreement, there is no whisper as to what is the extent of work left by the opposite party or whether the opposite party has done the work for the payments actually received. No application for expert commission, not even an Advocate  Commission is filed by the complainant.  During cross examination PW1 has deposed that agreement  Imemh[nbv¡pÅn 90% ]Wn]qÀ¯nbmbn«p­mbncp¶p. GItZiw  700 kvIzbÀ ^oÁv IÃv ]Xn¡Â _m¡nbp­v. Complainant has no case that opposite party having received additional amount, has not completed the work. No evidence to show that the work completed and the amount received does not tally. Further grievance of the difficulties of the devotees, carrying out the annual temple utsava etc. is not supported by any evidence.

In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that complainants miserably failed to prove a case against the opposite party. Hence complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 17^th  day of August  2012.

  Sd/-

Seena.H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

     Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –   Agreement between the complainant and respondent dtd.12/7/08

Ext.A2 –   Agreement between the complainant and respondent dtd.26/9/10

Ext.A3 –   Lawyer notice issued by Adv.Kochunarayanan to complainant

              dt.12/10/10

Ext.A4 series –   Reply to lawyer notice dated 3/11/10 alongwith postal receipt

                        and acknowledgement card.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

PW1 – K.Sreenivasan

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Ext.B1 – Copy of Complaint filed by opposite party before the SI, Alatur Police Station dated 18/11/10

Ext.B2 series – Copy of Complaint filed by opposite party before the SI, Alathur Police Station dated 27/11/10 alongwith postal receipt

Ext.B3 - Copy of  Complaint No.5854/10  filed before the JFCM Alathur

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

DW1 – Narayanan.K

Cost

No cost allowed