Date of Filing :  21/09/2022

Date of Judgement :  05/12/2023

Sri Subir Kumar Dass, Hon’ble Member

                                                                     Brief Facts

Complainant and her husband are the joint owners of 6 cottahs of land situated at Baruipur in Mouza – Tegachi Mahamudpur, J.L. No. 22, R.S./L.R. Dag No. 130, District South 24 Parganas, within P.S. Baruipur by virtue of a deed of conveyance for agreed consideration executed in their favour by the erstwhile owner on 5/4/2019.  Subsequently, in order to raise a boundary wall around the said property, complainant approached the OPs for their service in connection with raising boundary wall and entered into an agreement on 29/4/2022 with several specifications namely – (i) 266ft. x 6 ft. pre cast compound boundary work, (ii) electric meter room (6ft. x 6ft.) with Gate, (iii) entry gate of 10 ft. width, at a consideration of Rs.2,40,000/- to be paid in accordance with the payment schedule as agreed upon. 

Complainant paid the amount of consideration of the said work by making payment on different dates.  According to complainant, she had purchased bricks locally for a sum of Rs.17,500/-, which was supposed to be bought by the OP and the said amount was adjusted at the time of making payment during work. 

It is alleged by the complainant that, subsequently she found several faults and defects in the works of the OPs.  She immediately contacted them over phone and informed about the actual situation and she was assured that the defects would be removed.  Both OPs 3 & 4 admitted about their faults but they failed to remove the defects.  She was even told to get the defects removed and the cost would be reimbursed by them.  Subsequently, the complainant was compelled to get the faulty work repaired and complete the residual work by employing some other labour contractor, for which she had to incur  expenses about Rs.79,160/-.  The amount of such expenditure for the said repair work was duly communicated to the OPs, but they failed to reimburse the said amount, despite receiving the account number of the complainant.  Subsequently, complainant issued a letter through her Advocate on 19/7/2022, requesting the OPs to pay Rs.79,160/-, but that was also not complied with.

So, alleging fraudulent trade practice, deficiency in service etc. against the OPs, complainant filed this complaint seeking reliefs in the form of a direction upon the OPs to pay the said amount of Rs.79,160/- along with interest @18% per annum, compensation for harassment and mental agony, cost of litigation etc.

OPs did not appear to contest the case, so it was heard exparte against them.

Now, the point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief(s) in this case?

                                                                  FINDINGS

Complainant filed her Affidavit-in-chief.  She also produced the copies of the documents in support of her claim namely – deed of sale of the land purchased by the complainant and her husband on 5/4/2019, deed of agreement for work between OP 1 and the complainant, documents showing payment made by the complainant to the OPs on different dates through bank transfer and by cash, series of conversation made between the complainant and the OPs through mobile whatsApp chat, few photographs showing defects of wall raised by the OPs and the demand notice issued through the complainant’s lawyer addressed to the OPs.

On going through the materials on record, including the documents as aforesaid, it is found that complainant had made the agreement for raising the compound boundary wall in connection with their land at a consideration of Rs.2,40,000/-.  Subsequently, complainant bought the bricks for a sum of Rs.17,500/-, which was adjusted against the said amount as admitted by the complainant.  The documents also revealed payment of the consideration by the complainant to the OPs. 

Complainant claimed that there were certain defects namely – the shed and frame did not fit in the electric meter room, the brick pillar in the entry gate fell down, showing poor quality of work by the OPs and most of the pillars were in a shaking  condition.  So, complainant raised these matters to the OPs that she was assured to remove the defects by them, but that was also not done.  From the whatsApp messages it is also found that the OPs advised the complainant to get the repair work done by engaging local labour and they would pay the expenses.  It is also found that the OPs, though agreed to pay the said sum and obtained the account number of the complainant, ultimately did not make the payment, even after a demand notice. Therefore, we find, the complainant has legitimate grievances with the OPs who did not act in accordance with the agreement dt. 29/4/2022.  They even did not come to contest the case and challenge the contentions of the complainant. 

Therefore, considering the materials on record, we think the complainant is entitled to get back the said amount of Rs.79,160/- from the OP alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of 21/7/2022 when the OP obtained the account number of the complainant for making payment.  This apart, complainant is also entitled to Rs.6,000/- towards litigation cost.  As interest is being awarded, we do not consider any separate amount for compensation.

Accordingly, it is

                                                  ORDERED

That the instant case stands allowed against the OPs exparte.

OPs are directed to pay the said Rs.79,160/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of 21/7/2021 until realization.

OPs are also directed to pay Rs.6,000/- towards cost of litigation.

OPs are directed to comply with the aforesaid order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 

Dictated and corrected by me

Member