IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 16th day of July, 2022
Filed on : 28.04.2022
Present
1. Sri.S.SanthoshKumarBSc.,LL.B (President
2. Smt.Sholy P.R. B.A., LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.106/2022
between
Complainant:- Sri.Bijo Sankarankutty S/o Sankarankutty Lakshmi Sadanam Komana, Ambalappuzha Now residing at Vechoor Veettil Komana Muri Ambalappuzha P.O. Alappuzha Rep.by his Power of Attorney holder Sri.Sankarankutty -do- -do- (Adv.Sri.R.Sanalkumar) | Opposite Parties:- 1. M/s Laara Ventures Pvt.Ltd. 1st floor, Door No.566/50B Above Sports mini market Petta- Maradu Road, Kochin Rep.by its Managing Director 2. Devadathan Managing Director M/s Laara Ventures Pvt.Ltd. 1st floor, door No.566/50B Above Sports mini market Petta- Maradu Road, Kochin |
| (Ops 1 and 2 are Exparte) |
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
1. Complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-
The complainant is working in abroad and residing there. The complainant’s family is residing in a rented house now. The 1st opposite party is a construction company and is a service provider.
2. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for the construction of a residential building in his own property on 06-10-2020. The plinth area of the proposed building is 2560 sq.feet. The total construction cost of the building is Rs.50,56,000/-. As per the agreement the opposite party agreed the proposed building would have completed within 340 working days since 17-10-2020. But opposite parties did not complete the foundation of the proposed building though 540 days had elapsed since 17-10-2020. The peripheral of the foundation of the proposed building is completed without filling inner portion.
3. The complainant and the family members are residing a rented home for more than one and half year and is paying a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month because the proposed building is going to be constructed in the place of the old house which was demolished now.
4. The opposite parties had accepted an amount of Rs.4,04,480/- on 7-10-2020 and an amount of Rs.4,04,480/- on 17-12-2020 and the opposite parties accepted a total amount of Rs.8,08,960/- from the complainant. The complainant had frequently connected to the opposite parties over phone, the opposite party had completed the foundation work of proposed building till 02-10-2021. After that the opposite party did not make any further construction.
5. The opposite party did not start the third face of the construction work. The opposite parties accepted more money than the work done by them. Moreover, the opposite parties are demanding more money from the complainant without doing any further construction of the proposed building.
6. The complainant came on leave on 2-10-2022. After entering in to an agreement with the opposite parties he waited here. When the complainant asked about the delay in starting the construction work, the opposite parties laid some lame excuses and to give assurance to the complainant that they would start the work soon. On believing the representation made by the opposite party, the complainant extended his leave period to 9 months, within this period also the opposite party did not start the work. After the expiry of the complainant’s leave, he dashed to KSA. The above said 9 months leave causes a loss of huge amount of money as loss of a pay. For this loss also the opposite party is legally answerable. The delay in construction of proposed building is caused only due to the deficiency in service caused by the opposite party and their unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
7. Notice and copy of complaint sent to the opposite parties from this commission returned with endorsement “left without intimation”. Hence called absent, set exparte.
Points raised for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of
opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to refund Rs.5,00,000/-
from the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant entitled Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation
from opposite parties?
4) Reliefs and cost?
8. Point No. 1 to 3
Complainant’s case is that for constructing a residential building in his property he entered into an agreement with the opposite parties on 06-10-2020. The plinth area for the proposed building was 2560 sq.feet and the total construction cost agreed was Rs.50,56,000/- and also agreed to complete the work within 340 working days since 17-10-2020. Accordingly the opposite parties had received an amount of Rs.8,06,960/- from the complainant on 2 occasions ie, on 7-10-2020 and 17-10-2020. Even 540 days had elapsed since 17.10.2020 the work was not completed, only the foundation of the proposed building was completed without filling inner portion. On enquiry the opposite party said lame excuses and also demanded more money from the complainant. In the meantime the complainant extended his leave for 9 months and within this period also the opposite party did not start the work. After the expiry of the complainant’s leave, he dashed to KSA. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties this complaint filed by the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant.
9. Opposite parties were set exparte.
10. Power of Attorney holder of the complainant filed affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext A1 to A5. In the mean time, an Expert Commissioner was appointed for ascertaining matters such as the description of construction work finished and its expenditure incurred. He filed a detailed report with photographs and the same is marked as Ext C1 and C1(a). According to the Expert Commissioner the work was not completed as per the Ext A2 agreement. He also reported that the opposite parties had constructed only the foundation of the building as per the plinth area of the proposed building and he also reported the expense incurred for the said construction as Rs.6,46,492/-. Ext C1(a) photographs seems that the said foundation is not filled its inner side as alleged in the complaint. Exts.A4 and A5 shows the acceptance of Rs.8,06,960/-by the opposite party from the complainant in connection with the construction of the building. Accordingly the complainant is entitled to return an amount of Rs.1,60,468/- from the opposite party being excess amount obtained from the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the complaint the complainant is also entitled compensation for mental agony suffered in consequences of the acts of the opposite party and we limit the same as Rs.1,00,000/-. These points are answered accordingly.
11. Point No.4
In the result complaint stands allowed in part.
A) Opposite parties are directed to return Rs.1,60,468/- (Rs.One lakh sixty thousand four hundred and sixty-eight only) to the complainant within one month of receipt of this order. In default the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.
B) Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) as compensation to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of July 2022.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - General power of attorney
Ext.A2 - Agreement for construction
Ext.A3 - Photographs (2 Nos)
Ext.A4 - Copy of Receipt dtd.07.10.2020
Ext.A5 - Copy of Receipt dtd.17.10.2020
Ext.C1 & C1 (a) series - Commission report & Photographs
Evidence of the opposite parties:- NIL
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Comp.by:
