IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of July, 2010
Filed on 31.08.07
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.174/07
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri.Ajith.M.G, Presanna Sasi,
Muringa Thekkathil, Ayodhya,
Kandallooe North, Ayikadu,
Pattoli Market.P.O., Muthukulam. Cheppad.P.O.
(By Adv.P.V.Thomas) (By Adv.K.N.Azhakesan)
O R D E R
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)
Sri. M.G.Ajith has filed this complaint before the Forum on 31.08.2007 alleging deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party. The brief facts of his allegations are as follows:- He had entered into an agreement on 12.12.2004 with the opposite party for constructing a residential building for him for an estimated cost of Rs.11.75 lakhs, on condition that to complete the work within 10 months. The opposite party had accepted the entire amount of Rs.11.75 lakhs from him from 12.12.2004 to 08.10.2005. But the opposite party had not carried out the work as per agreement. Since the completion of the work was urgent, he had paid further amount Rs.1.20 lakh to the opposite party. The quantity of work finally measured comes to 2345 Sq. feet, but the opposite party had collected for 2465 Sq. feet, ie., 120 Sq. feet is excess which comes to Rs.60,360/- (Rupees sixty thousand three hundred and sixty only). The quality of the work done by the opposite party was poor and there is leakage and that he conducted tress work over the building and its costs comes to Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). He had not obtained any positive steps regarding the matter from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
1. Notice was issued to the opposite party, she entered appearance before this Forum and filed detailed version.
2. In the version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that there was an agreement between her and the complainant and that the A/c has not been settled now. Extra work has been done by her besides the agreement which was not paid by the complainant. Since she had completed the entire work, there is no need to expand any additional amount by the complainant. The complainant done ornament work without the consent or concurrence of her. She had spent a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for labourers for the work outside the preview of terms of agreement. Plinth area is calculated is not correct. Considering the plinth area, the amount paid by the complainant is insufficient, and that work done was of superior quality, and there is no chance for any leakage. The payment of additional amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only) was false. She spent a total amount of Rs.12,39,895/- (Rupees twelve lakh thirty nine thousand eight hundred and ninety five only) for the scheduled construction. But the complainant had paid only Rs.11,75,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh andseventy five thousand only) in addition to the charges paid for wood and for the plan.
3. Considering the contention of the parties this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the scheduled construction work?
b) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the amount from the opposite party as prayed for?
c) Relief?
Issues 1 to 3
4. Complainant had filed proof affidavit in support of his case and filed document in evidence, and he has been cross examined by the opposite party – document Ext. A1 marked. It is the agreement dated, 12.12.2004 executed between the complainant and the opposite party. The agreement shows the advance payment of Rs.11,75,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh seventy five thousand only) paid by the complainant to the opposite party, and payment of additional amount of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only) to the opposite party by the complainant for extra work. The agreement shows the payment schedule 1 and other conditions. The period of completion work was 10 months. Clause (5) of the agreement deals with the settlement of full amount will be at the time of satisfactory completion of the works. The agreement further deals with the specification of entire work relating to the building.
5. By the application of the complainant a commissioner was appointed to examine the details of the disputed matter of the scheduled building. Commissioner was filed a detailed report and marked as C1 – Commission Report -. The report shows that he has ascertained the details required by the complaint in his application dated, 28.12.2008.
6. Opposite party filed proof affidavit in support of her case. No document produced. Complainant has not cross examined the opposite party, and evidence closed as 28.12.2009.
7. We have heard the matter in detail and perused the documents produced by the complainant in evidence and verified the report prepared by those expert commission (Ext.C1) and deposition of PW1 and PW2. It is alleged that the opposite party had not complied with the condition of the agreement dated, 12.12.2004 executed between the complaint in connection with the construction of the Residential Building. The opposite party had collected the entire amount of Rs.11.75 lakhs from the complainant. But opposite party had not carried out the work properly as per the condition laid down in the agreement, and a major portion of the work left pending. It is further alleged that the quality of work was also poor, and leakae was seen in the building. The report of the commissioner also supporting the above fact (Ext.C1). It is alleged with the opposite party had collected the additional amount of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only) from the complainant for the additional work (Ext.A1) and that was the amount in addition to the total amount of Rs.11.75 lakhs received by the opposite party. After considering the whol;e facts and circumstances of this case and after a careful study of the evidence produced by the parties and deposition, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service, negligence and latches on the part of the opposite party in connection with the construction of the scheduled building. It is to be noticed that even though the opposite party has collected the full amount from the complainant as per the agreement and after accepted additional amounts from him, the opposite party has not shown any earnest effort in completing the work fully. Due to this, the complainant had incurred exorbitant amount to complete the remaining work. A detailed study of the commission report (Ext.C1) shows that the allegation put forward by the complainant are to be treated as genuine. The contention raised by the opposite party in this matter cannot be accepted a valid grounds against the allegation raised by the complainant relating to the work, to be completed. The action on the side of the opposite party is highly illegal and arbitrary and opposite party is liable to pay the expenses incurred by the complainant in order to complete the work.
8. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. In this respect we hereby direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand only) to the complainant in respect of the amount spent by him additionally for complete the remaining work of the scheduled building and return the excess amount of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees twenty six thousand only) collected by opposite party from the complainant and further pay an amount of Rs.20,500/- (Rupees twenty thousand and five hundred only) towards the amount spent by the complainant for providing Truss work in the building and pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony, pain, physical strain, inconvenience and loss of the complainant due to the willful denial to complete the work of the scheduled building by way of deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating of the opposite party. We further direct the opposite party to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as the cost of this proceedings and further direct the opposite party to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. We further direct that incase any default to comply with this order on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party shall pay interest as the rate of 14% for the said amounts to the complainant from the date of filing of this complainant till the date of realization of the entire amount.
Complaint allowed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - M.G.Ajith (Witness)
PW2 - Muraleedharan.D (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Agreement, dated, 12.12.2004
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
