Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/178/2019

C.M.Veeranna, Secretary, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Maruthi Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr.Nagaraj - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

05 Apr 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:18/02/2019

DISPOSED      ON:05/04/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:178/2019

 

DATED: 5^th APRIL 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	C.M. Veeranna, Secretary, Sri Jagadguru Renuka Mandira, NH-13, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	M/s Maruthi Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Nagaraj, Major, Beside Naveen Regency Hotel, NH-4, Service Road, Chitradurga.   (ex-parte)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the Secretary of Sri Jagadguru Renuka Mandira, NH-13, Chitradurga.  OP is the Proprietor of M/s Maruti Engineering Works, Chitradurga.  The complainant has approached the OP for construction of Mantapa before the temple and the OP agreed to finish the above said work for Rs.65,000/-.  The complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- as advance amount and the remaining amount is only Rs.55,000/-.  The OP never completed the above said work within time.  After lapse of one year, again the OP has demanded an amount of Rs.85,000/- instead of Rs.65,000/-.  The complainant agreed to pay the amount as demanded by the OP.  But by that time also, the OP neglected to complete the work.  After lapse of 6 months, the complainant contacted another contractor for construction of Mantapa and paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- for finishing the work.  Due to negligence and non performance of the work entrusted by the complainant to the OP, the complainant has suffered loss nearly Rs.80,000/- excess and suffered mental agony, financial loss.  The complainant has issued legal notice to the OP asking to repay the amount already paid in all a sum of Rs.65,000/- to the OP.  After receiving the amount of Rs.65,000/- from the complainant, the OP had dumped materials nearly worth Rs.35,000/- to start the work.  After dumping of materials, the OP did not come forward to start the work.  For non performance of the entrusted work by the OP, the complainant has suffered loss nearly for Rs.1,50,000/-.  Now the OP has to return an amount of Rs.30,000/- after deducting the amount of Rs.35,000/- towards the materials supplied, Rs.55,000/- the extra amount which was paid to the another contractor for construction of Mantapa in all the OP has to return an amount of Rs.85,000/- along with interest.  Therefore, prayed for allow the complaint.

  3.    Notice has been served to the OP.  In spite of service of notice, OP did not appear before this Forum and hence, placed ex-parte.

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 & A-2 were got marked and closed his side.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in finishing the entrusted work for construction of Mantapa in the temple and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.  

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- The complainant has entrusted the construction work of Mantapa to the OP in the temple.  Accordingly, the OP agreed to receive Rs.65,000/- for the purpose of construction of Mantapa and the OP has received Rs.10,000/- as an advance, the remaining amount is only Rs.55,000/-.  After lapse of one year, the OP asked more money from the complainant i.e., Rs.85,000/- for completion of the Mantapa.  By that time, the complainant agreed to give the said amount.  After lapse of six months, the OP failed to do the work, but dumped the materials for construction of Mantapa worth nearly Rs.35,000/-.  After dumping the materials, failed to complete the work entrusted. Thereafter the complainant approached another contractor for construction of Mantapa, who asked Rs.1,40,000/- for construction of the Mantapa.  The complainant agreed to pay the above said amount and finished the work by receiving Rs.1,40,000/-.  Due to non performance of the construction of Mantapa, the complainant has suffered nearly Rs.1,50,000/-.

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant, those are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5. It clearly goes to show that, the complainant has entrusted the construction work of Mantapa to the OP for Rs.65,000/-.  By that time, the OP has dumped the materials for construction of the Mantapa worth nearly Rs.35,000/-.  After that, failed to do the work.  After lapse of one year, the OP asked more money i.e., Rs.85,000/- from the complainant for construction of the above said work.  By that time, the complainant agreed to pay the same, but the OP failed to do the work.  After that the complainant has approached another contractor for construction of the work, who asked Rs.1,40,000/- to finish the work.  The complainant has paid the above said amount to another contractor.  Due to non performance of the construction of Mantapa as entrusted by the complainant, the complainant has suffered nearly Rs.1,50,000/-.  But as per the documents it shows that, the OP has dumped materials worth nearly Rs.35,000/-, the remaining balance is Rs. 30,000/- and the complainant has paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the new contractor. In this behalf, the complainant has suffered nearly Rs.55,000/- as extra expenses, in all the complainant has lost nearly Rs.85,000/-, that amount is to be paid by the OP to the complainant as OP has committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.  

       

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 5/04/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures) 

 

                                     

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Cash Bill dated 17.11.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Estimate sheets

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**