DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 04/11/2020
CC/143/2020
Ashok Kumar,
S/o Krishnan,
Athirkad, Gandhi Seva Sadan,
Palakkad – 678 571 - Complainant
(By Adv. Yasser Arafath)
V/s
K.P.Suresh,
S/o Parameswaran,
Kunnappully House,
Elavally North, Thrissur. - Opposite party
(By Adv.T.Kalidas & T.V.Pradeesh)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant purchased a house plot from the opposite party for Rs.6,70,000/- and entered in to an agreement with him for construction of a house and paid Rs.2,00,000/- as advance. The allegations are.
- The opposite party included several conditions in the said agreement unilaterally, making it an ‘unfair contract’.
- The construction work done by the opposite party is of poor quality and hence the foundation work had to be redone by spending Rs.1,00,000/- as per the advice of a qualified engineer.
- The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party which was replied by him denying all allegations.
- The opposite party took electric connection to his plot by using the amount given by the complainant and forging his signature. Hence the complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the advance amount, Rs.1,00,000/- for reconstructing the foundation, apart from a compensation or Rs.5,00,000/- and cost Rs.10,000/-.
- Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance and filed his version denying all allegation. According to him the complainant bought a plot of 2.10 Ares from him and entered into an agreement with him for construction of house of approximately 960 square feet area at the rate of Rs 1600/- sq.feet and got Rs 200,000/- as advance. After completing the work worth Rs 368000/- he demanded for the balance payment of Rs 168000/- As the complainant refused to make payment alleging that the work is not to his satisfaction, the opposite party stopped the work.
- As per IA 179/21, an Expert Commissioner was appointed by this Commission to assess the factual position of the construction work. The Commissioner submitted his report on 13/10/22. Neither the complaint nor the opposite party raised any objection to the Commissioner’s Report.
- The complainant filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ext.A1&A2 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of the construction agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite party and Ex. A2 is the copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
- The opposite party filed Proof Affidavit and marked Ext. B1 & B2 as evidence. Ext. B2 is the copy of OS 291/20 filed by the opposite party for the recovery of Rs 168000/- from the complainant and Ext. B1 is the reply sent by opposite party’s counsel to the legal notice sent by the complainant.
- From the documents marked as evidence, this Commission is not in a position to reach any conclusion regarding the Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite party. The report of the Expert Commissioner has not been marked as evidence. Hence we can’t rely on the same. Even otherwise the said report contain only very vague and inconclusive statements regarding the status of work or quality of work. In the result this Commission is not in a position to adjudicate on the merits of this case.
- Therefore the complainant has failed in proving a prima facie case against the opposite party. The complaint is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly compliant is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 14th day of November, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
