CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 13 /05 /2016
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/63/2016
Bhaskaran,
S/o.Kunju,
Vayusadan,
Lal Nagar, : Complainant
Puduppariyaram,
Olavakkodu,
Palakkad.
(ByAdv.K.K.Sudheer) Vs
Rajakrishnan,
S/o.Krishnan,
Parakulam, : Opposite Party
Puduppariyaram P.O,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma.K.P. , Member
Complainant entrusted the construction work for the extension of his dwelling house and entered into an agreement with opposite party. According to the agreement the opposite party had constructed walls on the two sides of the existing house and had to construct two rooms. He had also to construct wall up to the lintel level above the car porch. The total agreement entered between them was for the construction of 430 sq.ft and the opposite party had to complete the work within a period of 75 days. The total consideration fixed for the above construction was Rs.2,43,000/-. The agreement was entered on 08.02.2016. The period of 75 days was fixed with the condition that time is the essence of the contract and if the construction was not completed within the specific period opposite party had to refund double the amount to the complainant.
But opposite party did not construct according to the terms of the agreement. He had only collected the amounts without any time basis. He had also used substandard building materials and had not removed the waste portions of the existing building. Instead of using MSand opposite party used the waste particles of the rocks. He had also employed unskilled labourers and had used low quality bricks. After the completion of 75 days opposite party had only completed the roof of the ground floor and had not done any of the remaining works. He had also collected Rs.1,20,035/- from the complainant and had not completed the work within the stipulated periods. When complained about the construction and demanded for the settlement of accounts, opposite party apologized and told that he will not demand money anymore, and will complete the work as early as possible. The opposite party collected another Rs.40,000/- so as to construct the roof wall above the car porch. But did not start the construction. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party directly and over phone on several time, but was of no use . The complainant’s daughter and her husband was visiting his house during vacation and the complainant wants to the complete the construction work so as to accommodate them. So he again contacted the opposite party and requested to complete the work any how. At that time opposite party again demand Rs.12,000/- more, and had started the construction only on 31.3.2016. The opposite party left the construction without completing and had also collected and additional amount of Rs.2235/-, as wages to the labourers . The complainant then filed a complaint before the police station and the opposite party was warned by the police officer’s so as to the complete construction as early as possible. Even then opposite party did not turn up to continue with the construction. Hence the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 19.4.2016 to the opposite party but he had not respondend to the same. Hence the complainant approach before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,48,540/-, as compensation of breach of contract and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- so as to complete the remaining works along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental stress and financial loss suffered by him, and also to pay Rs.10,000/-towards the cost of this litigation.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel but no version was filed. Complainant filed application as IA 307/16 to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the property and file a detail report regarding the nature of construction conducted by the opposite party. Since no counter was filed in the above application IA was allowed and an expert commissioner was appointed to inspect the property and filed a detailed report. Expert commissioner inspected the property and filed his report. Complainant had also filed another application as IA 394/16 seeking permission to complete the balance construction. No counter was filed in the above application. Hence the above application was also allowed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit Exts.A1&A2 was marked from the part of the complainant. Expert commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.
Issues to be considered in this case are.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2.?
We have perused the affidavit and documents produced before the Forum. It is evident from Ext.A1 that complainant had entered into agreement with the opposite party for the construction of the extension of his dwelling house and had paid an amount of Rs.1, 20,035/-to the opposite party. We had also perused the expert commissioner’s report filed before the Forum along with the photographs of the alleged construction. The commissioner has opined that the brick work done is not satisfactory as there are cavities in mortar joints . The final amount of the completed construction was calculated as 1,14,000/-as per the commissioner’s estimate. It is obvious from Ext.A2 that the complainant had issued lawyer notice to the opposite party demanding him to complete the above construction. But no reply was seen sent by the opposite party . On perusal of the above documents it is very clear that opposite party had collected excess amount from the complainant and had not completed the work as per the Ext.A1 agreement. Hence it is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
In the above circumstances the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,48,540/- (Rupees Three lakhs forty eight thousand five hundred and forty only) as compensation for the breach of contract along with Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) the expenses to be incurred for the future construction and also to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) as compensation for the mental stress and financial loss suffered by the complainant . We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards the costs of this litigation. The aforesaid compensation amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day January 2017. Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- complainant had entered into agreement with the opposite party issued on 08/02/2016
Ext.A2- the complainant had issued lawyer notice to the opposite party issued on 19.4.2016.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Commission Report
C1-Johnson George
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.5000/-as cost
