Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/469/2014

K.Narayan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Karunakaran - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.L.J.Krishnamurthy

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                      Date of Filing :   28.11.2014
                                 Date of Order :   09.03.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
     2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             
                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I
               DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.469/2014
THURSDAY THIS  9TH  DAY OF MARCH 2017

K. Narayan Lal, 
Male, 58 years, 
No.34, M.G.R.Street, 
Thanthai Periyar Nagar, 
Tharamani, 
Chennai 600 113.                                             ..Complainant
                                              ..Vs..
Mr. Karunakaran, 
No.19, Ranni Anna Street, 
Thanthai Periyar Nagar, 
Tharamani, 
Chennai 600 113.                                             ..Opposite party. 

For the Complainants               :    M/s. L.J. Krishnamurthy & others       
For the opposite party                 :    Exparte. 
ORDER
THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I
 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for defective execution of work and mental agony and hardship  caused to the complainant and to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.  

1.    The averment of the complaint are brief as follows: 
     The complainant is the absolute owner of the property at No.34, MGR Street, Thanthaiperiyar Nagar, Tharamani, Chennai 113.  He had entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party for construction of a small sump measuring 8 ½  x 7 ½ feet of 8 feet depth and also to hold  15000 liters of water and the opposite party agreed to construct the same at Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.4.2014.   In addition to the construction he also entrusted with  construction of a compound wall measuring about 16 ½ft in length x 6 feet height and also a room over the sump measuring 9 ft x 9 ft about 81 sq. ft at Rs.1400/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs.1,13,400/- within two months.   The opposite party also agreed and noted down in a small chit singed by him.   Since it is a small work no written agreement was made.    An advance amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid to him on 21.4.2014. 
2.    The opposite party commenced the work on 22.4.2014.    After commenced the work he demanded further payment.  The complainant also paid Rs.30,000/- as advance.  While construction was in progress the following amounts were paid.   
Date                  Amount 
21.4.2014            Rs.25,000/-
    -            Rs.30,000/- 
28.4.2014            Rs.45,000/- 
7.5.2014            Rs.50,000/-
21.5.2014            Rs.50,000/-
21.5.2014            Rs.  3,000/- (for repairing the Corporation pipe)
                                   -
Total                 Rs.2,03,000/-
3.    The complainant had paid total amount of Rs.2,03,000/- and the opposite party had endorsed in the chit for receiving the advance amount. The opposite party completed the sump work not according to  instruction given to him and accepted by him, all substandard materials had been utilized.   The storage capacity of the sump was only 11,732 liters and the water was leaking and the sump was constructed in a defective manner, the compound wall also not upto the mark, for concrete beam no iron rods were used though accepted by him.  Further the room was constructed in half stage with incomplete structural works.   As such only 45% of the construction was done and still 55% of work is yet to be done. While so the opposite party demanded an additional advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for further completion of construction work.  The complainant pointed out the mistake and asked him to rectify but the opposite party stopped the work without rectifying the mistake committed by him.   
4.    The complainant engaged the chartered engineer to find out the extent of work carried out by the opposite party.  On 10.7.2014 the engineer inspected the premises and gave a report that only 45% of the work was completed and 55% of the work is left out.    The report is filed along with the complaint.  Therefore the complainant wants to complete  the work.  But the opposite party demanded huge amount and also threatened him in dire consequence that if the amount is not paid he would destroy the construction.  Hence the complainant gave a police compliant on 15.7.2014, the police enquired and directed the opposite party to complete the work after receiving Rs.50,000/- and also warned the opposite party not to indulge in threatening the complainant.    The opposite party also agreed but failed to do anything subsequently.  Inspite of several requests made by the complainant the opposite party left the work unfinished.  Therefore the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony due to the act of the opposite party.   When the complainant was away from Chennai the opposite party entered into the premises along with goondas on 25.9.2014 and abused his family with filthy languages and subsequently on 29.9.2014 at about 8.00 a.m. the opposite party along with his henchmen throw stones on the complainant and damaged the compound wall and construction and threatened in dire consequence.   The  complainant called the police and on complaint police protection was given to him. 
5.    The opposite party caused deficiency in service since he failed to complete the construction on terms and conditions and adopted unfair trade practice.   He is liable to be punished  under the Consumer Protection Act and he is also liable to compensate for the loss.  Hence the compliant. 
6.    In spite of notice served to the opposite party, the opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum. Hence the opposite party was set exparte.
7.    In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A5  are marked.  
8.    At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is: 
1.    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party as alleged in the complaint?. 

2.    To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for? 
9.  POINT No. :1          
      It is seen from the facts of the case that the complainant had entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party for construction of a small sump measuring 8 ½  x 7 ½ feet of 8 ft. depth and also to hold  15000 liters of water and the opposite party agreed to construct the same at Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.4.2014.   In addition to the construction he also entrusted with construction of a compound wall measuring about 16 ½ x 6 ft. height and also a room over the sump measuring 9 feet x 9 feet about 81 sq. ft at Rs.1400/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs.1,13,400/- within two months.   The opposite party also agreed for the same and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.55,000/-  as advance on 21.4.2014 and the opposite party commenced the work on 22.4.2014.    The complainant had paid totally Rs.2,03,000/-.   
10.    The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party had not completed the work as per the oral agreement.   The storage capacity of the sump was only 11,732 liters, the water was leaking and the sump was constructed in a defective manner for the compound wall, for concrete beam no iron rods were used though accepted by him, the room was constructed in half stage with incomplete structural work.  But he demanded further Rs.1,00,000/- without rectifying the defect.   Therefore he engaged chartered engineer who inspected the premises and gave a report that only 45% of the work was completed and 55% of the work is left unfinished and also as per the report poor quality materials were used.   Further the complainant also raised allegations that the opposite party threatened him in dire consequence that he would destroy construction done by him.   Therefore he lodged  police complaint against him where the opposite party appeared and agreed to complete the construction.  Whereas he failed to do so and also again threatened him and threw stones on the compound wall and damaged the construction Therefore the  complainant contended that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also caused mental agony and loss to the complainant and filed the above complaint seeking compensation for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. 
11.    It is seen from Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 that the opposite party agreed to construct a sump measuring 15,000 liters and also  compound wall and a room over the sump for which he received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.   The complainant also contended that during the process of construction the opposite party damaged the water pipe line for which he suffered without drinking water and also spent sum of Rs.3,000/- for repairing the corporation pipe.  
  
12.    In order to establish the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party the complainant had relied upon the engineer’s report filed by him i.e. Ex.A3.  On perusing the report it is seen that it is stated as
“RCC column, beam and roof slab and partly brick wall on two side are constructed and other major works are left-out in the room.   Balance brick walls, parapet wall, weathering coarse, door, flooring, plastering on walls and ceiling etc. to be completed in the building.  Only 45% of the works are completed, remaining 55% of works left out by the contractor.
As per observation I have found poor quality materials are used in the construction, workmanship is very poor.   RCC pillars and slab have not property concreted.  I was informed the exiting metro water pipe has damaged by the construction workers when digging the foundation.” 
It is also  stated in the engineer report that only 45% of the work is completed and the remaining 55% of work left out by the opposite party.    As agreed between the complainant and the opposite party the amount agreed for construction is stated as Rs.2,93,000/- for which the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also paid a sum of R.3,000/- for repairing the corporation pipe due to the fault of the opposite party.   But according to the agreement the opposite party ought to construct the sump measuring 15000 liters, whereas he has constructed only measuring 11,732 liters.   Apart from that there were several deficiencies committed by the opposite party as per the engineer report.   Further as per the police complaint the opposite party had also agreed to construct the remaining portion but failed to do so and also several allegations were made by the complainant against the opposite party,     as per the documents produced before this forum.   Therefore the complainant had established from his evidence and also through documentary evidence that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service.   Inspite of the complainant willing to pay some amount to complete the construction it is seen that the opposite party left the work unfinished and also used poor quality materials and committed deficiency in service.    Further it is also seen from the evidence of the complainant that the opposite party had also damaged the compound wall and caused loss and mental agony to the complainant.       
13.     Whereas the opposite party has not appeared before  this forum to refute the contentions of the complainant  but remained exparte.  Therefore this forum can draw adverse inference against the opposite party.  
14.    Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service due to which the complainant had also suffered loss and mental agony and thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. 
15.   POINT NO.2. 
As per decision arrived in point No.1,  the opposite party is  liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency on his part and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost.  Thus point-2 is also answered accordingly. 
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-  (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  
The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.        
    Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  9th  day  of  March  2017.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents: 
Ex.A1- 21.4.2014    - Copy of Contract details. 
Ex.A2- 21.4.2014
          21.5.2014    - Copy of Advance payment receipts. 
Ex.A3- 10.7.2014    - Copy of Engineer Report. 
Ex.A4- 15.7.2014    - Copy of Police Complaint. 
Ex.A5-     -    - Photos and CD. 

Opposite party’ side documents:   .. Nil. 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.