IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of October, 2016
Filed on 15.09.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.275/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Smt. Sobha V.K. Tech Bond Homes
D/o late Sarasamma Housing & Infrastructure Pvt.
Vrindavan House Ltd., NMC-XXVIII/994
Pennukkara P.O. Anugraha Textile Building
Pennukkara Thekku Muri International Market Road
Ala Village, Chengannur Taluk Market Junction, Nedumangad
Pin – 689 520 P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv. George Thomas) Represented by its Managing
Director, Sadath Abdul Salam
(By Adv. V. Gopakumar)
O R D E R
SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:-
The complainant on 13th February 2014 entered into an agreement with the opposite party to get a residential building constructed for the complainant. The opposite party undertook to put up the said residence for a total estimated cost of Rs.8,51,870/- . The opposite party had agreed to complete the construction of the material building within 13th June, 2014. The opposite party obtained Rs.4,80,000/- from the complainant, but has completed the work worth Rs.3,50,000/- and retained an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in his possession. That apart the opposite party has not completed the work in time as had been promised. The complainant by herself and through other well-meaning people contacted the opposite party and requested him to finish the construction of her house. The opposite party not only made it a point to discontinue the work, but also unlawfully kept hold of the complainant’s money in his possession. The works done were also appeared imperfect. Suppressing all these material aspects, the opposite party issued legal notice to the complainant. The opposite party committed deficiency of service. The complainant on getting aggrieved on this approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Though notice was sent, the opposite party was not keen on appearing before this Forum to challenge the complainant’s case. Resultantly, the opposite party was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant, and the documents Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. The commission report and the mahazor were marked as Exts.C1 and C2. As has been already observed, the opposite parties did not turn up to dispute the complainant’s case.
4. Going by the contentions of the complainant, the questions that arise for our consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite party’s service is deficient?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Bearing in mind the complainant’s contention, we carefully went through the complaint, proof affidavit and all other materials brought before us by the complainant. The complainant’s specific case is that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party, and the opposite party has agreed to put up a residential building for the complainant under certain specific stipulations. The opposite party though obtained an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- from the complainant, he has invested only 3,50,000/- on the construction of the residence. The opposite party illegitimately retained an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in his possession. That apart the works done were also imperfect, and without any proper reason he abandoned the work in the middle, the complainant contends. On a perusal of the materials available before us it is clear that there is substance in whatsoever have been alleged by the complainant. The Exts.A1 to A3, C1 and C2 speak volumes as to the plight the complainant has to face as well as the negligent attitude of the opposite party. As we have already observed, the opposite party neither turned up nor let in any evidence to challenge the complainant’s case. In the context of the complainant’s plausible case and in the premise of not disputing the same, we are of the strong view that the complainant is entitled to get relief. It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is definitely deficient, and the opposite party is liable.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of October, 2016.
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - Agreement
Ext.A2 - Receipts of S.B.I. (3 Nos.) & Receipt of Corporation Bank (1 No.)
Ext.A3 - Advertisement
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Ext.C2 - Mahazor
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
