Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/130/2015

M.Seetharamchand, S/o.Venkatraju, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.V.Vijay Kumar, Proprietor, M/s.Ace Constructions, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.Vijayaraghavan,

10 Dec 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

BEFORE         Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                         Tmt. Dr. S. M. LATHA MAHESWARI                           MEMBER

C.C.No.130/2015

 FRIDAY, THE 10^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021                                        

M. Seetharamchand,

S/o. Mr. Venkatraju,

Flat No.F-2, Meadows, 1^st Floor,

Plot No.48, Subramaniam Street,

Chendurpuram,

Kattupakkam,

Chennai – 600 056.                                                                      ::                         Complainant

-Versus-

Mr. V. Vijay Kumar,

Proprietor,

M/s. Ace Constructions,

No.W-238, 12^th Street,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai – 600 101.                                                                    ::    Opposite Party                                                                          

 

Counsel for the complainant               :    M/s. S. Vijayaragavan

Opposite party                                    :    Exparte

 

              This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 27.11.2021  and on hearing the arguments of complainant and upon perusing the material records submitted by the complainant and the opposite party remaining absent this Commission made the following:-

 

ORDER

TMT. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   MEMBER

               This complaint was filed by the complainant under section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party along with a prayer to direct them to rectify the defects in the construction and to pay a compensation of rs.25,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony along with cost of the complaint.

1. The gist of the complaint allegations is as follows;-   

The complainant had purchased an undivided share of land from one Mr. G. Ravi Kumar admeasuring 373 sq.ft. in the property situated at Plot No.48, Kattupakkam Village, Poonamallee Taluk, Thiruvallur District.   The said Mr. G. Ravi Kumar was appointed by the opposite party as Power Agent to develop the entire property to an extent of 2430 sq. ft. comprising the UDS purchased by the complainant.  In pursuance of the same, the complainant had entered into a construction agreement with the opposite party on 15.02.2013 and as per the Construction Agreement the opposite party agreed to build an apartment bearing Flat No.F2 on the first floor of the schedule property comprising an extent of 750 sq. ft. for a total construction cost of Rs.12,42,250/-.  The opposite party promised that the construction would be completed by the end of February 2013 with a grace period of 3 months.  The opposite party demanded the entire total construction cost as single payment and the same was paid on 15.02.2013 itself.   But the opposite party did not complete the construction as per their promise and sought extension of time several times and finally, handed over the possession of flat in the month of September with a delay of nearly 8 months from the agreed date.  It was submitted by the complainant that the parent document of the property and the completion certificate was not handed over to the complainant till today.  Though the possession was given on 08.09.2013, the construction was incomplete and the construction was not made as per the plan sanction by the CMDA authorities.  There were several deviations from the approved plan and several defects found in the flat F2 on the 1^st floor which was allotted to the complainant.  The pending and the incomplete works were such as leakage and seepage of water in the toilet, bedroom, kitchen, sitout etc. and there were so many other defects like window grills are not repainted, cupboards and lofts are not properly sealed, broken tiles in the bathroom etc.   The common area of the apartment also had various defects such as the parapet wall is very small and totally unsafe, EB box painting not done properly, plastering inside the overhead tank not done properly uncovered, rain water harvesting was not properly done etc.  The drainage pipe in the first floor to Flat G2 was leaking resulting in the wall and floor damaged.  The sump water tank in the panchayat tank was also not properly constructed.  Thus, the complaint was filed by the complainant stating that the alleged defects arose out of the sheer negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

2.         The complainant further contended that when these defects were communicated to the opposite party for rectification, the request was not properly responded by the opposite party and  the complainant was treated very badly  and was abused in filthy language.  Thus, several letters to the opposite party narrating the entire facts and defects were addressed various dates within 4 months from the date of possession and till today, the defects were not rectified and hence, the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to direct them to rectify and carry out the work mentioned in the complaint as defects and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony along with cost of the complaint. 

3.         The opposite party though appeared through Counsel at the earlier point of time had failed to file written version within the mandatory period.  Later on, written version was filed along with a petition which was later dismissed for default.  Hence, he was set exparte on 23.08.2017 for non-filing of written version and non-appearance..  

4.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and filed documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. 

5.         The point for consideration:-

Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved by the complainant and if so, to what relief he is entitled?

6.         Point:-

The complainant had submitted the following documents in proof of his allegations.

1. Sale Deed Dated:15.02.2013 marked as Ex.A1
2. The Construction Agreement dated:15.02.2013 marked as Ex.A2
3. Master plan is marked as Ex.A3
4. Letters addressed to the opposite party dated:20.01.2014, 15.02.2014, 22.02.2014, 01.03.2014 & 12.05.2014 were marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 with acknowledgement

7.         Heard the Counsel for complainant.  The Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased UDS from one Mr. G. Ravi Kumar in the total extent of 2430 sq. Ft. of property situated at Plot No.48, Kattupakkam Village, Poonamalle Taluk, Thiruvallur District and had entered into a Construction Agreement with the opposite party to construct a flat measuring 756 sq. Ft for a total construction cost of Rs.12,42,250/-.  Though the opposite party received the entire amount on the same day i.e. 15.02.2013 and assured that the entire construction would be completed during the month of February 2013 had failed to keep up their promise and after a delay of 8 months had handed over the possession on 08.09.2013.  Though the complainant took over possession, several problems were found in the complainant’s flat such as:

1. During the rainy season heavy seepage occurs,
2. Water seepage in kitchen, bedroom, dining hall and sit out and two bathroom ceiling,
3. The window grills are not repainted,
4. The cupboard and lofts are not properly sealed,
5. Master bedroom AC power point seepage,
6. Broken tiles in the bathroom,
7. Second bedroom cupboard has moisture and seepage,
8. Master bedroom floor tiles not properly laid.

The list below are some of the problems in the common areas due to the defective construction by the opposite party

1. Ground floor switch, opposite to the E.B Board not covered from the very beginning properly.  
2. First floor to second floor parapet wall is very small in height and totally unsafe while climbing the steps, especially for the children
3. The E.B. Box painting is not done properly
4. The plastering inside the overhead tank is not done properly
5. The overhead tank is to be covered properly instead of Cuddapah slabs.
6. The steps outside the 40 feet and 30 feet road outside the compound wall is not properly done. 
7. Rain water harvesting is not properly provided.  The pipe line water goes to the road instead of collection in the tank and thus, the purpose of rain water harvesting serves no purpose.
8. The drainage pipe in the first floor to flat G.2 is leaking and both the wall and floor are being damaged on account of this. 
9. The inside flooring at the sump water tank and the panchayat tank is totally not done properly.
10.  Water is getting collected even while the panchayat tank is dummy and empty.
11.  The rubbish collected inside the O.T.S. while fixing the grill is not cleaned.
12.  O.T.S three pipelines kept open.
13.  The used old E.B. panel, glass slabs, empty paint tins, granite slabs were dumped in the premises.
14.  The finishing works in the portico flooring and parapet walls are not done properly.
15.  The electrical motors appeared to be old.
16.  Water leakage in the compound wall
17.  Septic tank getting filled up in 15 days.
18.  Diagrams and blue prints for electrical, plumbing, septic tank, waste water line and rain water harvesting are not provided.
19.  Capacity of sump tank, panchayat tank, overhead tank and septic tank including depth of the borewell etc are not provided.
20.  There is a wide gap at the bottom of the main gate.
21.  Clarification with regard to street name not provided.
22.  Name of the street has to be changed as Subramaniyam Street in the electricity board and panchayat office for the property tax and water tax.
23.   A motor room for the electrical motors to be constructed.
24.  Electricity construction meters are faulty.
25.  Building requires second coat of painting.
26.  Lot of cracks in the gate joints.

Thus, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the above defects were found in the flat of the complainant and the common amenities provided by the opposite party and inspite of various communications made by the opposite party to rectify the same they did not come forward to provide solution for the complainant and thus the complainant was put to severe hardship and mental agony and thus he prayed for a direction to direct the opposite party to carry out the necessary repairs in the property.

9.         On going through the documents submitted by the complainant whereby, the construction agreement dated:15.02.2013 was filed by the complainant and the other documents Ex.A4 to Ex.A8 submitted by him, we could see that the contentions of the complainant was not proved by any sufficient evidence.  Though the construction agreement entered between the parties pertains to the construction of the flat no other sufficient material or evidence was submitted by the complainant in support of his allegations with regard to the defective construction.  When the complainant has alleged numerous defects with regard to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the construction of the flat, he ought to have taken necessary steps to appoint  a qualified Engineer or any other qualified person to inspect the property and to file a report.  In the absence of any petition to that effect and in the absence of any report about the defective construction, we are unable to accept the allegations made by the complainant with regard to the defective construction made by the opposite party only based on the mere statement by the complainant.  In such circumstances left with no other option we conclude and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of any expert evidence to prove the alleged defects put forth by the complainant before this Consumer Commission.  Thus, this point is answered against the complainant holding that the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not proved by the complainant satisfactorily and resultantly he is not entitled to any relief.   In the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is awarded.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of Documents filed by the complainant:-  

Ex.A1	15.02.2013	Copy of Sale Deed
Ex.A2	15.02.2013	Copy of Construction Agreement
Ex.A3		Copy of Master Plan (CMDA App.)
Ex.A4	20.01.2014	Copy of letter to the opposite party with acknowledgement
Ex.A5	15.02.2014	Copy of letter to the opposite party with acknowledgement
Ex.A6	22.02.2014	Copy of letter to the opposite party with acknowledgement
Ex.A7	01.03.2014	Copy of letter to the opposite party with acknowledgement
Ex.A8	12.05.2014	Copy of letter to the opposite party with acknowledgement

 

 

S.M.LATHAMAHESWARI                                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                             PRESIDENT