<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1660/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.C.Ramesh Madhyasta,S/o Late Lakshminarayana Madhyasta,Major in age,Residing at No.101,Canara Bank Employees Layout, 10th Cross, Kodigehalli,Bangalore North Taluk.Advocate – Sri.Manjunatha V. Rayappa.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.S.Manjunatha Adiga,Civil Contractor,S/o Late C.N.Shivaram Adiga,Residing at No.306, Rest House, 19th Main,Nandhini Layout,Bangalore – 96.<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a damages of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP who claims to be the Civil Engineer and Contractor engaged in building residential houses so as to construct his house at site No.101 Canara Bank Employees Layout in Banagalore. OP promised to complete the said construction at a total sum of Rs.9,55,000/-. They entered into contract on 30.11.2002 and it was renewed time and again on 04.07.2005 and 20.07.2006. Though complainant paid the entire construction amount to the tune of Rs.9,75,000/-. OP has not completed the construction and left it incomplete. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant even by causing the legal notice on 19.07.2008 went in futile. Complainant for no fault of his is forced to spend more than Rs.2,00,000/- extra. He sustained loss and damages due to the hostile attitude of the OP. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of OP, hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice by endorsement I.D and being aware of filing of the complaint failed to appear before Forum. Service is held sufficient. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he entered into an agreement with the OP for construction of his house at site No.101 Canara Bank Employees Layout, Bangalore on 30.11.2002. The total cost of the construction is fixed at Rs.9,55,000/-. Thereafter time and again the said time was extended that is on 04.07.2005 and 20.07.2006 at the request of the OP. The agreement copy is produced. It is contended by the complainant that though he paid more than Rs.9,75,000/-, OP failed to complete the construction as promised and failed to execute his work as per the construction agreement. He left the said construction unattended in the middle, thereby complainant suffered both monetary loss as well as mental agony. Photograph are produced to speak about the incomplete construction of the said house.<br /> <br /> 5. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. Though OP collected more than Rs.9,75,000/- from the complainant that is the total cost of the construction but failed to complete the construction as promised as per the agreement. Thus accrued the wrongful gain to himself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Complainant being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP even got issued the legal notice on 19.07.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced. Again there is no response though it is served on the OP.<br /> <br /> 6. Having taken note of all these facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non appearance of the OP leads us to draw an inference that he admits all the allegations made by the complainant. When that is so, complainant deserves certain relief as prayed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to complete the construction of the said house as per the construction agreement entered into between himself and the complainant within two months from the date of communication of this order to the satisfaction of the complainant. Failing in which OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within two months from this day.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br />