By Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Ranjith. C.P, Age 30, S/o. Padmanabhan, Cheengery House, Kalathuvayal (P.O), Ambalavayal, Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad District against M/s Laura Dimensions, 1st floor, Door No.566/50 B, Above Sproutz Mini Mart, Petta - Maradu Road, Ernakulam -38, Represented by Promoter Devadethan, S/o. Purushothaman Nair, B1 Pavanpuri, Mukkottil Temple Road, Gandhi Square, Poonithara, Ernakulam District, Now Residing at Sivakripa House, Kuttan Peroor.P.O. Manar, Alappuzha District and another as Opposite Parties alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from their side.
2. The Complainant states that the 1st Opposite Party is a construction company and 2nd Opposite Party is the promoter and the Operator of the 1st Opposite Party company. The Complainant states that he is working abroad and intended to construct a house for him. The Complainant on seeing the advertisement of the Opposite Party, contacted the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party assured that they will construct the building at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per square feet on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance on 15.03.2023. The Opposite Parties also assured that they will use only quality products for construction and their workers are qualified and experienced. Thereafter the Opposite Party visited the site for construction at Kalathuvayal and the details of construction were discussed with the father of the Complainant and Aneesh brother in law of the Complainant.
3. Believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant entrusted the construction work of house building at Kalathuvayal to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had discussed the details to the father and brother in law of the Complainant directly and to the Complainant over phone and they had finalized the terms and conditions. There after the Opposite Party prepared an agreement dated 15.03.2023 and orally admitted that the construction work of house building having 1500 sq.ft area charging Rs.1,750/- per sq.ft will be completed within 340 days from 14.04.2023. The Opposite Party requested for 15% of the total amount of Rs.3,93,750/- as advance and the Complainant paid the same as Rs.50,000/- on 14.03.2023, Rs.50,000/- on 15.03.2023 and Rs.2,93,750/- on 16.03.2023 through bank.
4. Apart from the said amount the Opposite Party also requested amounts to pay GST and the Complainant had to pay Rs.19,750/- on 31.03.2023 and Rs.1,31,250/- on 05.04.2023. More over the Opposite Party had received an amount of Rs.30,000/- as loan from the Complainant. But the Opposite Party had delayed the work as agreed. Meantime the Complainant realized that no amount is paid as GST and when asked, the Opposite Party returned Rs.15,000/- stating that GST need not be paid and due to the pressure of the Complainant the Opposite Party returned Rs.30,000/- received as loan from the Complainant. As per the agreement the work is to be completed within 340 days from 14.04.2023. But the Opposite Party delayed the work and had not worked in accordance with the agreement and thereby caused loss and mental stress to the Complainant which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party. The Complainant states that the Complainant is entitled to 12% interest for the amount paid by him to the Opposite Party and according to the Complainant the Opposite Party is not attending the phone call for the last 4 months. Even though the Complainant enquired about him in the office addresses at Ernakulam and Wayanad, the same also turned futile since offices were not working in the said addresses. Further enquiry also reveals that no returns are seen filed in the given GST number by the Opposite Party. Enquiry reveals that the Opposite Party had cheated other persons also without completing the work and without paying the amounts of the materials and hence the complaint praying for direction for cancellation of the agreement dated 15.03.2023 and for other reliefs.
5. The notices issued to both the Opposite Parties are returned as unclaimed and no version was filed. Hence Opposite Parties are set exparte.
6. In the meantime the Complainant filed IA 52/2024 for permission to complete the construction work and to restrain the Opposite Parties from making any obstruction to the work which was allowed by order dated 13.03.2024.
7. Since the Complainant is working abroad, he had produced a power of attorney which is accepted by the Commission.
8. Evidence in this case consists of the Chief Affidavit filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the Complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 series are marked from the side of the Complainant.
9. In the chief affidavit, the Power of Attorney Holder, the Brother in Law of the Complainant, stated that he knows the transaction and the details of the case directly. Since the Opposite Parties are exparte, there is no evidence to discredit the case of the Complainant.
10. The Commission had made a very thorough examination into the complaint and documents produced by the Complainant and the Chief Affidavit filed.
11. The following are the main points to be analysed in this complaint to derive into an inference of the fact.
- Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
- If so the quantum of compensation and other reliefs to be awarded to the Complainant?
12. In this case Ext.A1 is the agreement for construction of villa made between
the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Ext.A2 series is the copy of statement of account for the period 01.01.2023 to 12.11.2023 which shows a total amount of Rs.6,93,500/- is withdrawn as MB by the Opposite Party. According to the Complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- has been returned by the Opposite Party. Hence the balance amount available with the Opposite Party is Rs.6,78,500/-. Even though the Opposite Party had not cared to appear before the Commission to disprove the allegations of the Complainant, the Commission had examined the gist of the case considering the details stated in the complaint, circumstances of the case and with respect to all other evidences produced before the Commission.
13. From the overall consideration of the evidences on records we finds that the Complainant had proved his case and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and hence passed the following orders.
- The Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,78,500/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seventy Eight thousand Five hundred only) with 9% interest from 25.11.2023 the date of filing of the complaint.
- The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation.
- The Opposite Parties are also liable to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as costs of the proceedings.
14. Need less to say that the above orders are to be complied with, within 30
days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order otherwise the Opposite Party will be liable for interest except for the costs at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the interim order passed on 13.03.2024 in IA 52/2024 is made absolute.
Hence Consumer Case is partly allowed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of June 2024.
Date of filing:25.11.2023.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Aneesh. K. Driver.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Agreement for Construction.
A2 series. Statement of Account for the period 2023.01.01. to 2023.11.12.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
