Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

176/2008

A.Pandaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Marudhamalai Constructions and another - Opp.Party(s)

J.Ranjandevi

11 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   09.05.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.176/2008

WEDNESDAY THIS  11^TH  DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

A. Pandaram,

No.145, Peramanur,

MTC Nagar, Maraimalai Nagar,

Chengalpet District.                                              .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Mrudhamali Constructions,

Rep. by G. Shanmuganathan,

Room No.102, Hotel Kahanchi,

Ethiraj Salai, Egmore,

Chennai – 8.

 

2. Corporation Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Whites Road Branch,

No.38 & 39 Whites Road,

Chennai 600 014.                                   .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                :    M/s. J. Ranjani Devi & another      

Counsel for opposite party-1          :    M/s. I.Sathish & V. Annalakshi

Counsel for opposite party-2                 :    Mr.S.Sethuramani & another

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards to complete the pending works and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards delay in handing over possession and to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards the rend paid by the complainant and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the complaint.

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainants submit that 

   As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service & unfair trade practice  and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party-1 are as follows:

        The opposite part denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   

     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party  and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party-1 are as follows:

The opposite part denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.  

     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party  and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed and no documents  marked on the side of the opposite parties and also Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 marked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC.176 - 2008

5.   The points for the consideration is:  

1.  Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the completion of the pending works as prayed for ?.

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards delay in handing over the possession and  a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards rent paid  as prayed for?

 

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- as prayed for ? .

 

POINTS 1 to 3 : -

 

          Heard the complainant.  Perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant  entered into a construction agreement Ex.A3 with the 1^st opposite party in the month of August 2004.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party agreed to arrange the bank loan for such construction.   But the complainant has not filed any record.  On the other hand the complainant availed loan from the 2^nd opposite party of his own.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party disbursed the amount at different stage of construction to the 1^st opposite party; since the Tri-party agreement Ex.A3 has been executed.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that as per the construction agreement the 1^st opposite party shall complete the construction within the period of 12 months and handed over the possession.    The 1^st opposite party handing over the possession only on 22.2.2007 with delay of 18 months; but there is no record for such delivery of possession.   On the other hand as per Ex.A10 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.88912/- on 22.2.2007 establishes that the complainant has not paid the amount properly for due construction as per the construction agreement Ex.A3.   Hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount towards delay in handing over the possession of property and rental amount claim.   Further the learned counsel for the complainant contended that there are several deficiencies in construction of the house the Advocate Commissioner visited the along with the qualified Civil Engineer and file his report Ex.C2.  From the report it is very clear that there are leakage in the kitchen,  bed room and through electrical points in the Hall.  Equally the RCC roof was not covered with titles with proper roof only laid brick jelly in lime mortar and the same is plastered with cement mortar alone resulting such leakage.   The Septic tank also not constructed in a proper manner.   The qualified Civil Engineer even after submitting his report has not assessed; the value for proper rectification.  The complainant is claiming consolidated amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pending works left by the 1^st opposite party.   But there is no proper assessment for such amount.   In our view the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50/- per sq. ft. for relaying the RCC roof by titles.  Similarly a sum of Rs.20,000/- is award for renovating the Septic tank.   The complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

            Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Opposite parties’ side document: -     

Ex.C1

Ex.C2.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.