DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                            .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A.,B.L.,                                                                       .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,  M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                           ......MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.122/2022

THIS THURSDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

Mr.V.Mahesh Babu,

S/o.G.Venkatarathnam,

No.69, 37th St.Antony Street,

G.K.M.Colony, Chennai -600 082.                                                  ……Complainant.  

                                                                                 //Vs//

C.M.Sundaram,

Proprietor of Nethra Construction,

12-D/11, 43rd Street,

G.K.M.Colony, Chennai 600 082.                                                    …..opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                             :   Mr.A.Ramesh Babu., Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                         :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 23.09.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.Ramesh Babu Advocate, counsel for the complainant and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service with respect to the construction made by the opposite party along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the cost paid to the opposite party for construction work and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

Being the absolute owner of the residential property situated at No.69, 37th St. Antony Street, G.K.M. Colony, Chennai – 600 082, during the month of March 2018 the complainant decided to construct a bathroom measuring about 160 square feet along with some renovation work in the roof of the ground floor.  The opposite party after inspecting the property agreed to construct a bathroom measuring about 160 square feet in the first floor of the building along with the renovation work in the ceiling of ground floor on daily wages basis.  On 06.05.2018 the opposite party provided a cost estimate for a sum of Rs.2,39,215.25/- to complete the construction of bathroom and renovation of ceiling in the ground floor.  Before commencing the work both complainant and opposite party agreed that since the opposite party was carrying out the work on daily wages basis the complainant would buy the material and related items for the construction work.  But contrary to this the opposite party later requested the complainant that the opposite party would buy the materials from the shop known to him for a reasonable price.  The complainant believing his words agreed for the same and paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of cheque payments to the opposite party towards construction of the bathroom and renovation of ceiling work in ground floor.  However, when the complainant enquired the shop as to whether the material was purchased by the opposite party the complainant was shocked to know that the opposite party had quoted 10% more than the actual cost.  After the roof work of bathroom in the first floor the opposite party abruptly stopped the work.  The complainant approached the opposite party many times requesting him to restore the construction work, but there was no response from the opposite party. The opposite party made a condition to resume the remaining work only on material contract basis which was contrary to what he agreed earlier.  When the complainant questioned about this indifferent attitude of the opposite party, they informed the complainant that the opposite party is not interested to complete the work.  The complainant was forced to engage a new mason to complete the remaining work which the opposite party left and for this the complainant had spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to the amount paid to the opposite party. Thus aggrieved after issuance of legal notice dated 19.11.2018 the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned below;

 

To pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- being the cost paid to the opposite party for construction work;

 To pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with 24% interest per annum towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A6. In spite of sufficient opportunities the opposite party did not appear before this Commission and hence he was called absent and was set exparte on 07.02.2020 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period.

Points for consideration:

Whether the complaint allegations as to leaving the construction work in the midst of construction contrary to the agreed terms and conditions by the opposite party resulting in deficiency in service has been successfully proved by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

  Point:1

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of her contentions;

Abstract estimate provided by the opposite party to the complainant dated 06.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Photograph showing incomplete work by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A2;

WhatsApp communication between complainant and opposite party was marked as Ex.A3;

 Bills were marked as Ex.A4;

Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to opposite party dated 26.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;

Statement of Account was marked as Ex.A6;

Written arguments was submitted by the complainant and it was endorsed that the same may be treated as oral argument and hence this commission decided to consider the written arguments filed by them as oral arguments for the sake of deciding the complaint on merits.

The sum and substance of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that the opposite party accepted for construction after receiving a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards the construction of bathroom measuring 160 square feet and renovation work in the roof of the ground floor.  However, when questioned about the cost of construction materials they had stopped the construction in midst and thereafter did not come forward to complete the remaining works.  Due to indifferent attitude of the opposite party the complainant was forced to spend around Rs.3,00,000/- in addition to the amount paid to the opposite party.  Thus the complainant sought for repayment of the amount paid to the opposite party.

On appreciation of the documents produced by the complainant we could see that as per the Ex.A1 estimation given by the opposite party he had sought for Rs.2,39,215.25/- towards the expenses for the required construction of bathroom and renovation work.  Ex.A2 photograph was filed by the complainant in proof of incomplete construction made by the opposite party.  Further via WhatsApp communications sent by both parties filed as Ex.A3 it is seen that the opposite party undertook to construct the construction as stated by the complainant but had stopped in between without completing the construction of bathroom and renovation work.  It is also mentioned by the complainant in the WhatsApp messages that before commencement of work it was agreed by the opposite party to do the work on daily wages, but now the opposite party wanted it to continue on material contract.  It is also seen that vide message dated 08th May the opposite party has stated that he is not interested in doing the work and will complete the old roof work and leave.  The bills related to the materials issued by the shops were marked as Ex.A4.  In such circumstances it is presumed by this commission on the available materials that the opposite party had received a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant for doing the construction work but had stopped without completing the work in half way.   The opposite party did not sent any reply notice to the legal notice issued by the complainant and also did not appear before this commission to rebut the allegations raised by the complainant. Hence on the available materials and pleadings this commission is of the view that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in receiving the money towards the construction but failed to complete the construction and had left the work incomplete.  Thus the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.

Point No.2:-

With respect to the relief to be granted the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.2,50,000/- paid to the opposite party and Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation with 24% interest.  However, we thought it would be proper to order the refund of Rs.2,50,000/- being the cost paid to the opposite party and to award Rs.50,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and we also award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party

a) to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

d) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an interest of 6% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization. 

 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th day of September 2022.

 

  Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 06.05.2018 Abstract estimate provided by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 ................ Photographs showing incomplete work by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Whatsup communication between complainant and opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 ................. Bills Xerox

Ex.A5 26.11.2018 Legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 ............... Statement of Account. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

 

Nil

 

 

   Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                          MEMBER I                                     PRESIDENT