Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/91/2017

K.Ravichandran & anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.Balakrishnan - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Rajaraaman

17 Mar 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 3.

                BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                      ::     PRESIDENT                       

                                    Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.91/2017

  (Against the order in C.C. No.  41/2008 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C, Thiruvallur)

                                                                  DATED THE   17 ^TH DAY OF MARCH  2022

 

1.K.Ravichandran,

No.19, Ambedkar Street,

Teachers Colony,

Ambattur, Chennai 600 053

 

2. Mrs.Maragathamani Ravichandran,

Proprietrix,

M/s M.R.Foundation,

19, Ambedkar street,

Teachers Colony,

Ambattur, Chennai 600 053                               ..Appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2

 

                                                       Vs

S.Balakrishnan,

S/o Mr. Senthamarai,

Plot No.24, A.K.N.Nagar,

Near Rail Nagar, Perumalpattu,

Veppampattu, Tiruvallur District                         ..Respondent/complainant

 

Counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2  : M/s Ashok Rajaraaman

 Respondent/complainant                        :  paper publication effected called absent

 

This appeal was heard on various dates and finally on 24.2.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission pronounced the following order :-

 

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

          This Appeal was preferred by the complainant under section 15  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved against the order of the District Commission made in C.C.No. 41/2008 .

1.Brief facts presented by the parties before the District Commission :

Complaint :-

          This complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with a prayer to return the excess money of Rs.2,62,000/- and to pay Rs.1,78,000/- to complete the construction along with a compensation of Rs.50,000/-towards causing mental agony and the cost of Rs.10,000/- .

2.       The case of the complainant was that the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and offered to construct an independent house by getting loan from IOB. The 1^st opposite party is working as khalasi in ICF and the complainant is also working as grade II fitter in ICF. Thus the 1^st opposite party collected the ID card, ration card and salary bill of the complainant for the purpose of opening a savings bank Account. On 7.1.2004, the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant to come to the sub-Registrar office, Thiruvallur on 9.1.2004. On 9.1.2004, the 1^st opposite party got a sale deed executed in favour of the complainant for a land at Perumalpet. The value of land was only Rs.45,000/- but the sale deed was registered for Rs.72,000/-. Though the registration was done the 1^st opposite party did not hand over the land document. Further the 1^st opposite party got two blank cheques, signature and stamp papers and other papers from the complainant and when enquired the 1^st opposite party said they are required for the purpose for getting loan from IOB. When enquired after that the 1^st opposite party informed that no loan was sanctioned to the complainant but the 1^st opposite party gave the complainant a sum of Rs.22,500/- by cheque and obtained a receipt and after two weeks had given a sum of Rs.15,000/- by cash and asked the complainant to use it for his family expenses. The 1^st opposite party represented that the 2^nd opposite party is in charge of the constructing the house, however the complainant later came to know that the 2^nd opposite party is only the wife of 1^st opposite party. Though the construction was started it was not according to the agreed plan. In the mean time when the complainant approached the Bank Manager and enquired, he was informed that the entire loan amount was dispersed in favour of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party did not construct the building as per the promise made by him. The construction was only made for 525 sq.ft when it is promised for 550 sq.ft, the well was not dug, compound was not constructed, no electricity provided, plumbing and wood work not completed etc., Thus, the construction cost was said to be Rs. 2 lakhs and the complainant later came to know that the sanctioned loan was Rs.5,50,000/-. Thus the opposite party using the signatures of the complainant, blank papers had mis-appropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.2,62,000/-. Also there were so many defects in the construction as follows:-

1. Electricity supply not obtained to the house ;
2. Fencing was not done;
3. Elelctric motor not provided and installed;
4. Inside doors not fixed;
5. 30% of the work is yet to be completed.

Further it is submitted by the complainant that he was forced to pay the loan amount to the Indian overseas bank to the tune of Rs.5,50,000/- and also has to spent Rs.1,78,000/- to complete the construction. Thus alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed against the opposite party for the relief as mentioned above.

3.       The 2^nd op filed written version stating that she is the proprietrix of M/s M.R.Foundation and had offered to built an independent houses to the complainant and various other persons. It is stated that the opposite parties did not open any account in the name of the complainant but admitted that the sale deed was registered for   Rs.70,000/- in the name of the complainant. It is submitted that the 2^nd opposite party has only arranged the loan for the complainant in IOB but all other allegations with regard to blank cheque and issuance of a sum of Rs. 22,500/- and Rs.50,000/- was denied by the opposite party. It is further submitted that the house was constructed only as per the complainant’s wish and in agreed quality in time. The allegations of the complainant that the opposite party has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- was denied. Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The complainant filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.A.1 to A.9. However on the side of opposite party only proof affidavit was filed and no documents were submitted.

5.       The learned District Commission after considering the pleadings and materials had partly allowed the complaint holding that the ops 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/- with 6% interest from 25.3.2008 till the date of order towards the expenses incurred for carrying out the incomplete construction work and repairs along with a compensation  of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- towards cost.

6.       Aggrieved over the same the opposite parties have preferred the present appeal.

Points for consideration :

Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- towards the expenses incurred for carrying out the incomplete construction work and repairs?

Point :-

7.       The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission has  allowed the complaint partly and ordered Rs.1,78,000/- towards the cost of construction of the incomplete works based on no evidence. He further submitted that there was also no discussion by the District Commission that the complainant had spent the said amount to complete the unfinished work. Thus he sought for the appeal to be allowed. The counsel also submitted addl. Proof affidavit along with a document to show that the property has already been sold by the complainant and contended that as the property which is the subject matter of the complaint has been sold the complaint itself is not maintainable.

8.                We have perused the pleadings and documents submitted before us. It is seen that the learned District Commission has arrived at a finding that the complainant had failed to prove that the opposite parties had committed mis-appropriation of Rs.2,62,000/- and had also rendered a finding that the alleged deficiencies in the construction of the building was not proved by the complainant. Against the said findings by the District Commission, no appeal was filed by the complainant. Therefore the said findings had attained finality and no pain to enter into such discussion and findings with regard to misappropriation and deficiencies in construction.

9.       The only ground raised by the appellant is that the award of Rs.1,78,000/- by the District commission is without any evidence. We, on going through the pleadings and evidence produced by the complainant, left with no other option but to accept the ground raised by the appellant in the appeal. Our view is supported by the fact that the complainant had not filed any document to show that he had incurred Rs.1,78,000/- to complete the construction of the house nor he requires Rs.1,78,000/- to complete the incomplete construction of his house. Further it is also to be appreciated that no evidence was also let in by the complainant to show that the opposite parties had left the construction incompletely. In such circumstances, the order of the District Commission awarding Rs.1,78,000/- to be paid by opposite party was without any basis and without any discussion as to how the amount of Rs.1,78,000/- has been arrived is completely against law and improper and hence liable to be set aside. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant and as against complainant holding that he is not entitled  for Rs.1,78,000/- to complete the construction.

                    In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvallur passed in CC.No. 41/2008 . No order as to cost.        Mandatory deposit is directed to be returned to the appellant by the Registry with accrued interest to the appellant.

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R. SUBBIAH

           MEMBER.                                                                               PRESIDENT.