DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of August  2013 

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

            : Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,   Member

            : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                   Date of Filing : 16/03/2013 

 

K.Prabhakaran Nair,

S/o.M.Sankunni Nair,

Krishna Kripa, Ummini,

Dhoni P.O. Palakkad                                    -                  Complainant

(By Adv.P.Anil)
 

        Vs 

P.Murali,

Eltech Building Construction,

R.V.Building, College Road,

Palakkad                                                     -                  Opposite party

(By Adv.N.Rajesh)

 

Order by Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member

 

Case of the complainant in brief:

 

The complainant  entrusted  some civil and fabrication works in his house with the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-.  It was agreed that after the works stipulated are completed the accounts would be finally settled and amount in excess would be return to the complainant. But the work done by the opposite party was not satisfactory and the complainant was constrained to terminate the contract midway and resorted other means to complete the work. Opposite party returned an amount of Rs.35,000/- along with an inflated accounts of expenditure and quantity of work. The amount of Rs.2,35,000/- was appropriated by the opposite party is unjust. The area of air space where the sheet is laid is shown on 1662 Sq.ft. instead of 1300 Sq.ft. and the cost per square feet is shown as Rs.110/- which is much higher. The current rates   prevailing in the market is Rs.75 – 80. The wood meant for the cabin in the upstairs was returned to the opposite party as they are very poor quality. Even then the opposite party has appropriated an amount of Rs.16,000/- in this behalf. The complainant asked opposite party to return the amount of Rs.99,232/ that he has unjustly appropriated. The amount entitled to the opposite party for the work done is Rs.1,70,769/-. The amount was arrived at after accepting the claims made by the opposite party. But the opposite party has not returned the excess amount received by them. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice. But the opposite party has sent a reply notice stating false contentions.

So the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.99,232/- with 6% interest with Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions.

Opposite party denies the contention of the complainant that the opposite party has received excess amount from the complainant. Opposite party admits that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- to the opposite party. From which an amount of Rs.35,000/- was returned to the complainant. The opposite party spent an amount of Rs.2,03,618/-. So that the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,618/- more to the opposite party. The amount and quantity regarding the work has been decided earlier. The complainant had no complaint regarding the amount or the quality of the work done by the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant. Complainant and opposite party cross examined as PW1 and DW1.

Heard both parties.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

The complainant is a senior citizen of 81 years, entrusted some civil and fabrication work in his house with the opposite party for a consideration of  Rs.2,70,000/- to the opposite parties. The agreement between the parties was oral. So that there was no written work specification. In the lawyer notice dated 18/12/12 (Ext.A1) itself the complainant stated that he has paid Rs.2,70,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party contents that they have received only Rs.2,25,000/- from the complainant. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that Rs.2,70,000/- has been paid to the opposite party. On the back side of Ext.A4 document it can be seen that a statement of accounts for Rs.2,70,000/-. But it doesn’t carry any signature of the opposite party. So that the amount given by the complainant to the opposite party can be considered as Rs.2,25,000/-. This amount is admitted by  the opposite party. The statement of account in the Ext.A4 document shows a great difference from that of in the Ext.A2 document, version and affidavit of the opposite party. In Ext.A4 document it is seen that Rs.1,82,820/- under the head of sheet work 1662 Sq.ft. x 110. In the other documents it can be seen that 1380 x 110 = Rs.1,51,800/-.

Complainant produced a report of valuation of work dated 26/10/12 prepared by A.M.Sheriff, BSc (Engg.)MISE,MIE,FIV Chartered Engineer, Insurance Surveyor approved valuer and marked without any objection as Ext.A3. In Ext.A3 document it is written as based on current material cost and labour charges the cost is worked out as 1300 Sq.ft. x 80 Sq.ft = Rs.1,04,000/-.

Both the parties admit that opposite party has returned an amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant. Opposite party contents that the said amount was returned for the treatment of the complainant. But this contention is not stated either in the reply notice, Ext.A2, or in the version. Moreover it is not proved by any documents. At this time of cross examination the complainant admitted that c­v Rooms part  sNbvXn«p­v. AXn\v FX  Amount Bbn F¶v AdnbnÃ.   Painting work Dw plumbing work Dw sNbvXn«p­v. sNbvX ]WnIÄ hrnbmbn«nÃ. Ext.A4 document, the statement given by the opposite party, it is seen that sheet work 1662 x 110 = 182820. As per Ext.A3 it is 1300 Sq.ft x Rs.80/Sq.ft = Rs.1,04,000/-. An amount of Rs.35,000/- has been returned to the complainant. Balance amount of Rs.47,768/- can be considered for the other works i.e. partition of room, painting, plumbing etc. So that the amount entitled by the opposite party is Rs.1,86,768/-. So that the opposite party is liable to return an amount of Rs.38,232/-.

From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

In the result complaint partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.38,232/- (Rs.2,25,000 – Rs.1,86,768) to the complainant alongwith   Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  

Order shall be complied within one  month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.  

 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of August  2013.   

    Sd/-

Seena H

President

Preetha G Nair

Member

      Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member