Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/212/2018

A.Subramanian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Ramalingam,Chennai Roofing (p) Ltd., Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.S.Muthuvenkataraman

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

 

Complaint presented on :03.08.2009           Date of disposal            :29.07.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                              THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,    :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.212/2018

 

DATED FRIDAY THE 29^th  DAY JULY OF 2022

A.Subramanian,

“Shri Mahalakshmi”

No.6, 3^rd street,

Habibulla Road,

T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

                                                                                      .…..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

Ramalingam,

Managing Director,

Chennai Roofings (P) Ltd,

Old No.21, New No.217,

GST Road, West Tambaram,

Chennai-600 045.                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                           : M/s. S.Muthuvenkataraman and 1

other.

 

Counsel for  opposite party                          : M/s. R & P partners

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT :

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite part to refund the advance of Rs.1,50,000/- with 24 % interest from August 2008 till date of realization and to pay the cost incurred for completion of work Rs.65,000/- and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- compensation for the mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- costs of this complaint.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 785/2009.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.212/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant submitted that he had visited the opposite party’s stall at the Chennai Trade Centre Exhibition and decoyed by the marketing strategy adopted by the opposite party staff he immediately sought the service of the opposite party for carrying out the roofing work at his terrace and placed an order for the same. The complainant submitted that one Sasi kumar swifted and inspected the complainant’s place which at one made the complainant feel enthralled on the response showed by the opposite party staff only to later on realize that it was done of the rhetoric ways adopted to mulct the complainant’s money in the name of rendering service. The complainant further submitted that Sasikumar posing to possess potential excellence promised the complainant that from the date of placing the order the work completed within 15 days. He furnished quotation and in response to the same the complainant placed for structural building with roof work and paid advance of Rs.60,000/- on 11.06.2008, through, to complete the work within June 2008. The complainant submitted that he called the opposite party in first week of july 2008.The complainant submitted that even till the end of August 2008 the roofing sheets did not arrive and certain structural work was pending for want of material. The complainant submitted that he had sent a letter dated 29.08.2008 explaining the above mentioned endurance undergone by him at the hand of the opposite party’s staff.  The complainant submitted that he sought the service of the opposite party for carrying out the roofing work at his terrace and placed an order for the same. The complainant submitted that monies were paid on the assurance from the opposite party that roofing sheets will be supplied within 4 days and the work will be completed by the end of August 2008. The complainant further submitted that nearly 75% estimated bill value was paid by the complainant. The complainant submitted that even till the end of august 2008 the roofing sheets did not arrive and certain structural work was pending for want of material. The complainant submitted that he had sent a letter dated 29.08.2008 to the opposite party’s personnal. The complainant submitted that he called Mr.Kumaran to receive a reply that the work will be completed in 3 to 4 days. The complainant were communicated to the opposite party by a letter dated 09.12.2008 for which the opposite party had replied by a letter dated 15.12.2008 regretting the inconvenience caused to the complainant thereby admitting the deficiency in service rendered to the complainant by the opposite party.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite party denies all the allegations stated by the complainant except those, which are specifically admitted thereon.  The opposite party denied the averment that the complainant was decoyed by the marketing strategy adopted by the opposite party.  Whereas the opposite party accepts the fact that the complainant visited opposite party’s stall at Chennai Trade centre Exhibition and placed an order with the opposite party for carrying out the roofing work at the terrace of the complainant.  The opposite party submitted that are matters of record and the same are not traversed by the opposite party. The opposite party denied and the complainant put to strict of the same.  The opposite parties stated that Mr. Sasikumar was on long leave pertaining to his illness.  Hence, Mr. Sasikumar could not attend the calls made by the complainant during the leave days.  Whereas the other staff of the opposite party were responding & coordinating with the complainant everyday about the progress of the project. The opposite party accepted the roofing work at the complainant’s premises got delayed due to the non supply of materials within the stipulated time by the steel vendor. The opposite party stated that the order was placed to sheet vendor to deliver the sheets at the site.  Inspite of the timely order the opposite party could not get the material on time due to the high demands of sheet coils.  The opposite party accepted that Mr.Kumaran PRO and Mr. Sasikumar visited the complainant and gave the commitment to complete the work, the opposite party denied the allegation that the workers suddenly stopped the work and abandoned the site. The opposite party accepted that the opposite party replied to the complainant’s letter dated 09.12.2008 by the letter dated 15.12.2008 the opposite party’s denied the allegation that the opposite party admitted the deficiency in service through the said letter. There is no deficiency in service by the opposite party therefore the complainant is not entitled for any amount as compensation. Further the opposite party reserves the right to not to repay the advance of Rs.1,50,000/- claim the outstanding due from the complainant with regard to the said facility. Further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

Both side arguments heard. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to A9 were marked on his side and written arguments.  The opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B3 were marked on the opposite party side and written arguments. 

4. POINT NO :1 :-

                   The complainant approached the opposite party for installation of Roofing sheets in the terrace of the complainant for which the opposite party has given a quotation of Rs.2,03,115/- for structural frame work and for fixing the roofing sheets and the said quotation with the terms of conditions is marked as Ex.A1.  As per the condition the work has to be completed 25 days from the date of work order and payment of advance amount and 50% of the total amount has to be paid as advance. Under Ex.A2 to A4 the opposite party has received from 11.06.2008 to 21.08.2008 Rs.1,50,000/- the placing of order by the complainant and payment of Rs.1,50,000/- is admitted by the opposite party.  In the written version in para.7 the opposite party admitted that the delay in the roofing work was due to the non supply of materials within the stipulated time the steel vendor and further contended that the complainant has paid on 75 % of the estimated bill value after completion of the 90 % of the work and stated that inspite of the timely order opposite party could not get the material on time due to high demands of sheet coils and hence contended that there was no deficiency on the opposite party. 

          5. On 29.08.2008 and 09.12.2008 the complainant has sent a letter to the opposite party stating that the  work was delayed and in the 2^nd letter it was alleged that the work was stopped by the workers all of a sudden and in view of the same the complainant has entrusted the completion of balance work to some other contractor and claimed damages for the same. Those letters were marked as Ex.A5 and A6.  Under ExA.A7 the opposite party contended that only cladding and ridge works are pending which will be completed by 22.012.2008 and also regretted for the delay.  Though the complainant alleged that for completing the work Rs.65,000/- was spent by engaging some other contractor there is no proof for spending that amount.  But on the other hand it is found from Ex.A8 dated 17.12.2008 and 22.01.2009 some of the materials for completing the balance work was supplied by one Vinod Agencies and though it was written in the letter pad of the said agency at page no.18 the receipt of Rs.23720/- under Ex.A8 is found, which will go to shown that the complainant in order to complete the work has paid Rs.23720/- to some other contracting agency.  There is no engineer report or any other document filed by both the parties to prove how much work was completed and what is the remaining work to be done and the value thereof.  Though in the additional proof affidavit filed by the opposite party 02.05.2014 it is stated that under Ex.B3 on 17.10.2008, 04.10.2008 and 03.10.2009 materials were delivered to the complainant to the value of Rs.2,45,780/- including labour charge and transport charge and after deducting the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by the complainant still the complainant is liable to pay Rs.95,000/- to the opposite party, the said contention is found to be an after thought and the same was not  raised in the written version filed by the opposite party earlier.  Further in Ex.B3 there is no value of the materials supplied and there is no corresponding bills in respect of Ex.B3 and therefore the said contention raised by the opposite party under Ex.B3 cannot be accepted. It is found from the documents filed that opposite party has not completed the installation of roofing sheet work as agreed under Ex.A1 within the time frame work.  The opposite party cannot attribute to the cause of delay by pointing out that the delay occurred due to non supply of materials by the steel vendor in time. There is no proof to show that the opposite party  has placed the order with the steel vendor in time.  It is found that the complainant was put to hardship and mental agony due to non completion of work in time by the opposite party. The above said facts will clearly prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point no 1 answered accordingly.

6. Point. No.2:-

          Based on findings given to point. No.1.  It is found that the opposite party has not completed the work in time, the complainant as per Ex.A8 has to spent Rs.23720/- for purchasing materials for completing the work through some other contractor and for completing the work, the complainant would have incurred a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards the labour charges and transportation and thus the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of incurred for completing the work.  The complainant is not entitled for refund of the advance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest since already major work was completed by the opposite party. The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- hardship and mental agony suffered by the opposite party and also entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/- litigation expenses.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) towards the costs incurred for completing the work and also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.  The above said amount shall be paid to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

 

          Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29^th   day of  July 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	05.06.2008	Quotation received from the opposite party.
Ex.A2	11.06.2008	Cash receipt Rs.60,000/0 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A3	04.08.2008	Cash receipt Rs.40,000/0 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A4	21.08.2008	Cash receipt Rs.50,000/0 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A5	29.08.2008	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party with RPAD.
Ex.A6	09.12.2008	Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party with RPAD.
Ex.A7	15.12.2008	Letter received from the opposite party.
Ex.A8		Bills.
Ex.A9	04.05.2009	Legal notice from the complainant to the opposite party with RPAD.

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1	15.12.2008	Letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant’s letter dated 09.12.2008
Ex.B2	12.08.2008	Letter issued by M/s. Steel mount to the opposite party.
Ex.B3		Delivery chellan to the complainant.

 

 

MEMBER – I                MEMBER – II                                 PRESIDENT