Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

264/2012

Bhuvaneswaran, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rasi Mahesh, - Opp.Party(s)

D.Vijayakumar

07 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on: 13.12.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  07.06.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 07^th   DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

C.C.NO.264/2012

 

 

Mr.Bhuvaneswaran,

No.21, S.V.Koil  Street,

Vysarbadi,

Chennai – 600 039.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs.

	Mr.Rasi Mahesh, M/s. Rasi Construction, No.77, New Magazine Road,     Chennai – 600 039.
	.....Opposite Party

 

Date of complaint                                  17.12.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      :D.Vijayakumar

Counsel for opposite party                     : M/s. G.Ashok Kumar (Ex–parte)

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The  Complainant is the land owner in respect of premises bearing Door No.21, S.V.Koil Street, Vysarbadi. He engaged Opposite Party, building contractor to construct a building in the said premises on contract basis. An agreement was entered between themselves on 27.11.2011 to construct  1050 sq.ft building at a cost of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,45,000/- on varying dates till 08.04.2012. The Opposite Party has not constructed the building in a proper manner as per the agreed terms in the agreement. He used poor quality of materials in the building for construction. The foundation pillar has not been constructed in the straight 90 decree and so also in the corner wall. The Opposite Party constructed 4 inch inner wall thickness instead of agreed 9 inch in the agreement cracks are found in the terrace due to excessive mixture of sand. No sewage connection given separately  and water pipes not connected to the water connection and the water tank provided is an old one proper iron grill at staircase, no grill gate provided, the  painting seems to be very rough, the  electrical wire are used with poor quality. Since the construction was not in terms of the agreement, the above defects were noticed in the building and thereby the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service. Hence the Complainant suffered with mental agony due to the Deficiency in Service of the Opposite Party and hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for a compensation of Rs.16,03,000/- including for mental agony and legal expenses and render justice.  

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The disputes raised by the Complainant are not a Consumer disputes and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this Complaint. The Opposite Party constructed inner walls 4 inch thickness instead of 9 inch is violation of construction agreement and   cracks were found on the terrace due to excessive mixture of sand with cement is imaginary. There is no clause to construct the inner wall thickness shall be 9 inches. There is no space to make sewage connection in his   plot and with his consent the Opposite Party attached sewage connection to his brother.  The Complainant has not filed any document evidence or photography to prove the defects alleged by him. Therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If it is so, to what relief?

4. POINT NO : 1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant is the land owner of the premises bearing Door No.21, S.V.Koil Street, Vysarpadi and to construct a building in the said premises, the Complainant engaged the services of the Opposite Party and accordingly Ex.A1 construction agreement dated 27.11.2011 was entered between them and the cost of the construction was fixed at Rs. 10,00,000/- to construct  a 1050 sq.ft area and the Complainant also paid Rs.10,45,000/- on various dates  till 08.04.2012.

          5.  The Complainant filed proof affidavit and on his behalf Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 marked. Though the Opposite Party filed written version he did not file proof affidavit in spite of several opportunities given to him and hence he was set ex-parte on 21.03.2016. Hence, there is no evidence available on behalf of the Opposite Party excepting the statement made by him in the written version.

          6. The Complainant alleged deficiencies against the Opposite Parties in the constructed  building  are that the foundation pillar and the inner  corner wall was not in the 90 degree straight and the inner wall constructed with the 4 inch thickness instead of 9 inch and cracks were found in the terrace due  to excessive mixture of sand and no sewage connection was given and iron grill was not provided at staircase and in the entrance and poor quality materials were use including for electric  fixation and old water tank instead of new one and to find out the deficiencies,  an Advocate Commissioner with the help of a Civil Engineer  inspected and they filed   report separately with CD photograph of the building and they have been marked as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.

          7. In Ex.C1 the advocate Commissioner and Engineer report they have  stated the deficiencies that so many cracks are found in the terrace , parapet  wall and it may be due to wrong mixture ratio and the pillars are 16 in number and each pillar are not in a straight or alignment and the pillars are not in right ankle and due improper work in the terrace floor the first floor rising is very complicated and in terrace floor proper level finishing is not done and lot of undulations were found and the inner  wall was not in the 90 degree straight and the entrance room no doors and in the pooja room no windows were put up and installed water tank is in damaged connection and iron grill in staircase and other grill are not in good quality and the 3 phase board is fixed without proper accessories and no connection is provided and no grill gate are provided in the entrance. The defects noticed in the Advocate Commissioner and Engineer reports supports the case of the Complainant, that the Opposite Party had used  poor quality of materials and had also not constructed the building in a proper ankle and therefore agreeing with the reports of the Advocate Commissioner, we hold that the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT NO: 2   

          Since the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service, the Complainant suffered with harassment and metal agony is accepted. Though the Complainant has proved that the building constructed by the Opposite Party have defects in the construction, to rectify  such defects the quantum of amount needed have not been stated in the evidence of the Complainant with supporting evidence. However, the Complainant filed this Complaint to order and direct the Opposite Party to pay the agreed contract amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- for mental agony towards compensation. In the absence of specific evidence of the Complainant, it would be difficult to assess the amount needed to rectify the defects in the building and to order the same. However, the Complainant proved that there are several defects, committed by the Opposite Parties in the structure as well as in the materials used to construct the building. Hence it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- would meet ends of justice to rectify the defects in the building and also to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the Complainant towards compensation for rectifying the defects in the building and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th day of June 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 27.11.2011                   Construction Agreements payments

Ex.A2 dated 08.08.2012                   Legal Notice with counterfoil

LIST OF COURT DOCUMENT:

Ex.C1 dated  NIL                     Advocate Commissioner Report

Ex.C2 dated  NIL                    CD Player

Ex.C3 dated  NIL                    Photo Copy

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT