Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/250/2013

B.Jayaperumal - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Sivasankar - Opp.Party(s)

E.Arun

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE         HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                        THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                        TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

 

                               F.A.250/2013

[Against the Order in  C.C No.33/2009 dated 29.9.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Chenglepet]

Dated this the  11^th day of FEBRuary, 2015

 

Mr. B.Jayaperumal

Proprietor

Madura Builders

No.15 A, first street

Kamaraj street

Kancheepuram Taluk                              ..Appellant/opposite party

                                        Vs

Mr.P.Sivasankar

S/o K.Pichai

No.166/4, Ammankoil street

Manthangal village

Thamal post

Kanchipuram District                             .Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellant/opp.party     : M/s E.Arasu

Counsel for Respondent/complainant : M/s K.Kumaran

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 26.11.2014  and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.         This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Chenglepet in C.C. 33/2009 dated 29.9.2011 allowing the complaint.

 

2.     The case of the complainant is that he entered into a construction agreement dated 10.5.2007 with the opposite party to construct a residential building and it was mutually agreed that a sum of Rs.85,000/- is to be paid towards construction of overhead, water tank, septic tank, compound wall besides the service connection in the name of the complainant and borewell and the time of completion of construction is six months. The complainant had paid an advance of Rs. 50,000/- to the opposite party and subsequently payments were made on various dates and in total a sum of Rs. 7,10, 000/-  was paid to the opposite party. The opposite party did not complete the construction work and the complainant estimated the value of the work to be done at Rs.1,50,000/-. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint, praying for direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the value of the pending work to be done and to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony and mental strain suffered and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 

3.       The opposite party remained exparte.

 

4.    The District Forum considered the entire materials on record including the documents Ex.A1 to A.16 and Ex.C.1 and held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction work either before the stipulated period, or even later, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

 

5.         It is pertinent to note that the opposite party argued the case on merit

 6.          It is contended by the appellant/opposite party that  Ex.A.1 to A.16 were not considered by the District Forum in proper perspective and that the District Forum ought not to have  accepted the Civil Engineer’s report, Ex.C.1 and that it is not proper on the part of the District Forum to have relied on the documents. Ex.A1 to A.16 and also Ex.C.1 which is the Civil Engineer’s report who has estimated the value of the incomplete work at Rs.1,01,460/-.

7.          We find no reason to disregard, the Civil Engineer’s report which is clear and exhaustive and the District Forum has rightly relied on Ex.A.2 and Ex.C.1, the Civil Engineer’s report.

 

8.           The District Forum has come to the right conclusion based on the available materials that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction work and based on the Engineering report C.1, who has assessed the value of the pending work at Rs. 1,50,000/-. The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the complainant towards the value of the  incomplete work and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation.

 

9.        There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum in holding that there is  deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in not completing the construction as per the agreement under Ex.A.2 and directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the value of the incomplete work to be carried out and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service.

 

10.     There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

11.          In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

   P.BAKIYAVATHI                           J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

        MEMBER                               JUDICIAL MEMBER                PRESIDENT