CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th February, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 16/02/2015
CC /22/2015
Vijayaraghavan.S,
S/o.Sivaraman Nair,
6/123(1), Kavu Street, : Complainant
Santha Villa, Sekharipuram,
Palakkd – 678 010
(By Adv.U.Suresh)
Vs
M.Sasi Menon,
Saikrishna, Nooradi Road, : Opposite party
Sekharipuram, Palakkad- 678 010
(By Adv.John John)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Complainant in this case is a retired employee. He entrusted some works to the opposite party as extension of work area and construction of an additional bed room with attached bathroom, that the opposite party agreed to construct the same for a total amount of Rs.3,60,000/- within 6 months. The complainant entrusted the work to the opposite party on 07/07/2014. He paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party on 10/07/2014. He also paid another amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to the opposite party on 22/07/2014. He agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.20,000/- after completion of the construction work. Opposite party had endorsed the same in the diary maintained by the complainant. But as promised the opposite party failed to complete the work. He had completed only 40% of the total work entrusted to him and cheated the complainant. The works completed by the opposite party are of poor quality. Complainant requested the opposite party to complete the work on several occasions, but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite party issued a lawyer notice dated.05/11/2014 demanding the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- for which the complainant has sent reply stating the true facts. He alleges that the above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service on his part. Due to the above act of the opposite party he had suffered irreparable injury, loss, hardship loss of fame etc. According to the complainant the opposite party has completed the work only for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- As such the opposite party is liable to refund the balance amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to the complainant. He also alleges that opposite party had done unfair trade practice. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to grant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for not completing the construction, and Rs.50,000/- for completing the balance construction, and Rs.2,20,000/- collected from him in excess along with cost of the litigation. Along with the complaint he had also filed an application for appointment of an expert Commissioner for examining the alleged construction.
Notice was issued for the opposite party in the complaint along with application for appointment of expert Commissioner. The opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed counter in the Commission application denying all the allegation in the complaint. He contented that the attempt of the complainant is to raise some false allegations against him and to put him in to great hardship and is trying for gaining illegal enrichment. The acts of the complainant is illegal and high handed. There is absolutely no merits and bonafides on the part of the complainant. The Commission application is filed only to mislead the Forum and to set up a false case by taking out an Expert commissioner. Since sufficient reasons are not mentioned in the petition the expert commissioner cannot be appointed and the petition has to be dismissed. IA 76/15 filed for appointment emergent commission was heard separately. In the interest of this justice IA was allowed. Smt.Sujatha Vijayan was appointed as expert Commissioner to inspect the property and filed a detailed report. Both parties were granted particularly to file their respective work memos. Commissioner has inspected the property and has filed a detailed report. Opposite party has not filed any version in the complaint. Both parties had not filed any objections to the Commissioner’s report. Meanwhile complainant filed application as IA 195/15 to permit him to complete the remaining construction. Since opposite party has not filed any counter in that application, it was also allowed. Complainant was directed to file chief affidavit. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. The opposite party has neither filed version nor affidavit. Ext.A1-A3 was marked. A3 was marked with objection of the opposite party. Commission report was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed. Opposite party filed application as IA 34(A)/15 to reopen the evidence and allow them to file version. Since the application was highly belated it was allowed on cost of Rs.750/- to the complainant. Opposite party had not paid cost. Hence IA’s were dismissed. Matter heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUE No. 1
We had perused the documents produced from the part of the complainant along with Commission Report which was marked as Ext.C1. According to Ext.C1 the total amount needed for construction of these rooms will be Rs.3,00,000/- and the amounts spent at the present stage will amount to Rs.1,80,000/-. On perusal of Ext.A3 the diary, maintained by the complainant it is evident that the opposite party has endorsed that he had received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 10/07/2014 and had received another amount of Rs.1,90,000/- on 22/07/2014. He had also endorsed in Ext.A3 that the balance amount as Rs.20,000/- only to be paid on completion of the works. According to the Commissioner the opposite party has done the construction amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- whereas it is obvious from Ext.A3 that he has collected an amount of Rs.3,40,000/-. So it is clear that the opposite party has collected Rs.1,60,000/- in excess from the complainant for the works alleged to have been done by him. Commissioner has clearly stated that most of the entrusted works are not done by the opposite party as per the agreements. Hence it is clear that the opposite party has committed the deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. Opposite party has neither filed any version nor produced any contra evidence to disprove the above contentions.
From the above discussions we are of the view that opposite party has committed deficiency of service on his part and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakhs only) as compensation and also to refund the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- collected in excess from the complainant for the alleged construction along with Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of February, 2016.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Lawyer notice issued by opposite party to complainant dtd.05/11/2014
Ext.A2 series– Reply notice dtd.12/11/2014 and postal receipts and ack.card
Ext.A3- Xerox copy of endorsement dtd.10//2014
Ext.C1- Commission Report (Smt.Sujatha Vijayan)
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.5000/- as cost.
