Manojkumar K G V/S K J Ponnamma - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Pathanamthitta

CC/14/14

K J Ponnamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manojkumar K G - Opp.Party(s)

22 Feb 2014

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum

Pathanamthitta

Complaint Case No. CC/14/14

1. K J Ponnamma

Kunnathu House, Chenneerkara Village, Chenneerkara P.O., Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta.

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Manojkumar K G

Proprietor, M/S, Amrutha Associates, Kulanada Village, Kulanada P.O.

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:
	HONORABLE Jacob Stephen PRESIDENT
	HONABLE MRS. K.P.Padmasree MEMBER

For the Complainant:

For the Opp. Party:

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C. No. 14/2014 (Filed on 18.01.2014)

Between:

K.J. Ponnamma,

Kunnathu House,

Chenneerkara Village,

Chenneerkara P.O.,

Kozhencherry Taluk,

Pathanamthitta. …. Complainant.

(By Adv. K.T. Thomas)

And:

Manoj Kumar K.G.,

Proprietor,

M/s. Amrutha Associates,

Kulanada Village,

Kulanada P.O. …. Opposite party.

ORDER

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

Complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief from the Forum against the opposite party.

2. Brief facts of this complaint is as follows: Opposite party is engaged in the construction of residential buildings on contract basis and the complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement on 18.04.2011 for the construction of a residential house for the complainant in a plot owned by the complainant which is situated at Muttathukonam at Chenneerkara Village. As per the said agreement, opposite party agreed to complete the work within 18 months from the date of agreement as per the plan for a total cost of Rs. 12,20,432/- on turn key basis. Specifications of the construction, quality of materials, mode of payment etc. are clearly envisaged in the agreement. Accordingly, the opposite party started the construction. But even after a lapse of 11 months of the date of completion, opposite party has not completed the work inspite of collecting Rs. 11,40,000/-, out of the total cost of Rs. 12,20,432/- from the complainant. Even though the opposite party has collected Rs. 11,40,000/-, works for Rs. 5,00,000/- is pending and the works already carried is also substandard. At the same time, he had abandoned the work and he is not prepared even to return the key. So the complainant is not in a position to entrust the remaining works by others. In spite of several requests, opposite party is not prepared to complete the work. So the complainant sent a lawyer’s notice on 09.10.2013 to the opposite party. But even after receiving the said notice, he is not cared to comply the request of the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount o Rs. 5,00,000/- the costs required for completing the remaining works along with the key of the building and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with cost of this proceedings.

3. In this case, opposite party is exparte.

4. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A5. After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

6. The Point: Complainant’s allegation is that the construction work entrusted to the opposite party by the complainant has not completed by the opposite party even after a lapse of 11 months from the stipulated period even after the receiving Rs. 11,40,000/- out of the total agreed amount of Rs. 12,20,432/- and the works done is having no quality and an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is required for completing the work. Further, the opposite party has not returned the key of the home also. Because of the above said act of the opposite party, complainant is put to financial loss and mental agony and the said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence the opposite party is liable to the complainant.

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 9 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, documents produced are marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the original agreement dated 18.04.2011 executed between the complainant and the opposite party for the construction of the building. Ext. A2 series (A2 to A2(d) are the 5 receipts issued by the opposite party for receiving a total amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- from 18.04.2011 to 22.10.2012. Ext. A3 is the office copy of the Advocate Notice dated 09.10.2013 issued to the opposite party for the complainant. Exts. A4 and A5 are the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment card of Ext. A3.

8. On the basis of the available materials on record it is seen that the complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement on 18.04.2011 for constructing a residential building for the complainant for a total amount of Rs. 12,20,432/- within 18 months from the date of agreement on turn key basis and the opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 11,40,000/- till 22.10.2012. The complainant’s case is that the works has not been completed even after a lapse of 18 months from stipulated date and the works already done is substandard and incomplete and an additional amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is further required for the completion of the work though the opposite party had collected about 95% of agreed amount. Since opposite party is exparte, we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant. Hence, complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged. The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which is no doubt caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the same. Therefore, we find that this complaint is allowable.

9. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 4,19,568/- (Rupees Four lakh nineteen thousand five hundred and sixty eight only) (ie. Rs. 11,40,000/- + Rs. 5,00,000/- minus Rs. 12,20,432/- = Rs. 4,19,569) to the complainant for completing the remaining works along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount. Opposite party is further directed to return the key also.

Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of February, 2014.

(Sd/-)

Jacob Stephen,

(President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Agreement dated 18.04.2011 executed between the

complainant and the opposite party.

A2 : Receipt dated 18.04.2011 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued by the