Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/133/2015

Kala Associates, Proprietor - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. Vedavalli - Opp.Party(s)

K. Arjunan

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                                BEFORE       THIRU.J. JAYARAM            PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                       TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                   MEMBER

                                                                                               F.A. 133/2015

[Against the Order in  C.C No.426/2008 dated 26.11.2014 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai(South)]

Dated this the  12^th day of AUGUST 2015

 

M/s Kala Associates

Rep.by its Proprietor

Mr.V.S.Elangovan

91/34, Greenways Road

R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028                                                              ..Appellant/opp.party

                                                                          Vs

Tmt.R.Vedavalli

W/o Mr.V.Natarajan

No.6, Pitambaram street

Ganapathipuram

Chrompet, Chennai 600 044                                                        ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for Appellant/opp.party          : M/s K.Arjunan

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

 

       This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 20.7.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.             This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South) in CC.426/2008 dated 26.11.2014, partly allowing the complaint.

2.              The case  of the complainant  is  that he entered into an agreement  with the  opposite party  for an  additional construction over an extent  of  525  sq.ft  and  the  complainant  paid  a  total  sum of Rs.3,25,000/-  to  the opposite  party  in  installments  and the  total  cost  of construction was worked out to Rs.3,54,375/- in the agreement; and accordingly the balance amount payable to the opposite party was Rs.29,375/-. However, the opposite party did not complete the construction and he abandoned the work in the middle, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

2.     According to the opposite party, he received a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from the complainant, and the construction work could not be completed since the complainant’s tenant in the house did not permit him to do the work, and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.     The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint in part holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

4.     Admittedly, the appellant / opposite party received a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- from the complainant / respondent towards construction work. At this stage, the appellant / opposite party would contend that he did not complete the work since the tenant residing in the house did not permit him to do the additional work.

5.     It is pertinent to note that the appellant / opposite party has not filed proof affidavit, and there is no evidence on record to establish that the tenant did not permit him to do the additional work and therefore, the contention of the opposite party in this regard is untenable and cannot be accepted. Therefore, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not completing the construction as per the terms and conditions in the agreement.

6.      As per the agreement, the balance amount to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party is Rs.29,375/- and admittedly, the construction work is not completed by the opposite party, and the reason for the delay in completing the construction remains unsubstantiated.

7.      The District Forum has allowed the complaint in part, directing the opposite party to complete the construction within one  month from the date of receipt of the order and on completion of the construction he is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.29,375/- from the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rupees One Lac towards compensation and to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 01-04-2008 till the date of payment on the sum of Rs.3,25,000/- paid to the opposite party.  

8.      We feel that the compensation of Rs. One Lac is very much on the higher side and the award of interest for the sum of Rs.3,25,000/- is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to all the relevant factors, we are inclined to reduce the compensation to Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum and setting aside the award of interest on the sum of Rs.3,25,000/- and confirming the rest of the order. 

        In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) instead of Rs.1Lac awarded by the District Forum, and setting aside the direction to pay interest. No order as to costs in the appeal.

       Time for compliance: Two Months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order; and in case of default, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till compliance.

 

 

TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                   J. JAYARAM                       

      MEMBER                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER