Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/308/2011

Sappa Venkata Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

SA Habeeb - Opp.Party(s)

A Bhaskara Rao and Ashok KUmar Soppa

18 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:22-08-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:18-11-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                            Tuesday, the 18^th day of November, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.308/2011

Between:-

Sappa Venkata Rao, S/o late Appa Rao,

Hindu, aged 58 years, resident of Door

No.36-91-35, Ravindra Nagar, Kancharapalem,

 Beside NH-5,Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

S.A. Habeeb, (Private Contractor), S/o Not known,

Muslim, aged about 45 years, Resident of Door

No.27-20-7, Bowdara Road, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                           …  Opposite Party    

                     

          This case coming on 11.11.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and the Opposite Party being set exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri. H. Ananda Rao, Honourable President, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party directing him to complete the remaining (left-over) works according to the agreement or to pay an amount of Rs.94,000/- for getting the works completed, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation & Telephone charges.

 

 2.      The case of the Complainant in brief is that he entered into an Agreement for Construction of a G+1 with all amenities on 24.05.2008 for Rs.6,94,000/- (Six lakhs and ninety four thousand only) with the Opposite Party;  wherein, he promised that he will be completed the basement of the proposed building, within 5 or 6 months and further noted the agreement the details of the constructions of the building and he paid totally Rs.6,85,000/-  and the same was acknowledged and though the Opposite Party started work on 03.07.2010, he did not complete the building as promised in the agreement and finally on his request, the Opposite Party hand over the semi-finished house by promising him to finish the remaining work  at an early date within 15 days to one month on 28.05.2011.   

 

3.       It is further case of the Complainant that he lease-out his ground floor to Sri B. Jaganmohana Rao S/o B. Chinne Satyam who occupied the same on 06.06.2011 and as on that date, the remaining balance work is pending but due to rain on 06.07.2011 it entered into from all sides of the walls as a result all utilities, walls damaged etc., Hence, this Complaint directing the Opposite Party to do pending work:-

          1) Front elevation Grill (3x2 feet) in 1^st floor.

          2) All window doors in Ground floor and 1^st floor.

          3) Grill was not provided at G+1 floor kitchen rooms.

4) Chumki work on top floor, side walls plastering, and plumbing work is providing and front entrance gate.   According to him the total estimation of Rs.94,000/- approximately.    Hence, this Complaint.

 

 4.      The Opposite Party put his appearance after receipt of the summons but failed to attend or to file his counter for the reasons best known to him.

      

5.       To prove the case; on behalf of the Complainant, he filed his sworn evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 is to A3.   On the other hand, no documents were marked on behalf of the Opposite Party.

 

6.       Heard the Complainant.

 

7.       Now the point that would arise for determination is:-

 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs of advance amount with interest, compensation and costs.

 

8.       The Complainant in his evidence affidavit filed had sworn to the relevant contents of the Complaint.   To prove his case, he mainly relied upon Ex.A1 Construction of House Agreement stated to have been signed by the Opposite Party i.e., private contractor  and Ex.A2 photos showing the structures of windows and entrance etc. Ex.A3 is styled rough estimation.

 

9.       According to the Complainant, he entered into an agreement for construction of G+1 with the Opposite Party i.e., private contractor vide Ex.A1 but unfortunately, the signature of the Complainant on the complaint not find place in Ex.A1.    It only discloses the signature of the contractor of the Opposite Party.    The page No.4 of Ex.A1reveals some endorsement stated to have been made by the Opposite Party, admittedly which is not counter signed by either the Complainant or any witnesses.   This agreement bear Rs.10/- non-judicial stamp: on a careful scrutiny of the terms of the agreement i.e., Ex.A1; we are of the considered opinion, it cannot be termed as house construction agreement, at best it can be said a private contractor gave an undertaking letter to the Complainant.   Further as seen from Ex.A2, without filing the corresponding negatives, it cannot be said that they are the original photos of the relevant constructions in-dispute.   Ex.A3 styled as rough estimation stated to have been issued by M.G. Prasad, Civil Contractor, Visakhapatnam, but unfortunately the relevant evidence affidavit is not filed to prove the same.     Docket order on 02.03.2012 reveals this Forum directed the Complainant to file report of technical person with regard to the construction work but the Complainant failed to file the same.   For these reasons and in the absence of report of the technical person and evidence affidavit of civil contract, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party has not carried out the work as agreed or promised to the Complainant.   We are also of the view, that there is no deficiency in service while carrying on work by the Opposite Party.   Having regarded to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for, and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

 

 

 

 

           

10.     In the result, this Complainant is dismissed.   No costs.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of November, 2014.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Male Member                     Lady Member                            President

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A1	24.05.2008	Agreement between the OP and the Complainant	Original.
Ex.A2		Photo print (two pages four photos)	Photo copy
Ex.A3	21.07.2011	Rough Estimation	Original

For the Opposite Party:-                                             

                                      -Nil- 

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Male Member                    Lady Member                                 President