BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No.374/2021 Filed on 02/12/2021

ORDER DATED:11/11/2024

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant and the opposite party entered in to an agreement for constructing a house for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-.  As per the agreement the complainant paid the whole amount of Rs.16,00,000/- to the opposite party in instalments.  After that the opposite party demanded one more lakh.  The complainant paid this amount also.  But the opposite party has not completed the work for Rs.16,00,000/-  only he has constructed the house for Rs.13,00,000/-.  The materials used for the construction are of lower quality.  The opposite party had constructed the house with lower quality materials and the worth of the construction was only and Rs.13,00,000/- but not Rs.16,00,000/-.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

2. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  The opposite party has averred that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that an agreement was made between the complainant and the opposite party for constructing a building over a foundation in resurvey No.168/4 & 168/5.  The complainant agreed to pay Rs.16,00,000/- in five instalments.  The materials which has to be used for construction mentioned in the agreement in addition to the agreement for kitchen cupboard, TV stand, Wash basin cupboard and four modular kitchen for which an extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been agreed between the complainant and the opposite party.  The same was recorded on the back side of the original agreement.  As per the agreement dated 15/09/2020 the complainant paid four instalment as agreed, but the last instalment was not paid by the complainant.  since the 5^th instalment was not paid the work was stopped and their after as per the directions of some mediators on 20/07/2021 an agreement was made between the complainant and the opposite party agreeing that amount of Rs.50,000/- will be paid on that day itself and the balance Rs.50,000/- only at the time of completion of the construction.  But the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party after the completion of the construction.  The opposite party filed a civil suit against the complainant for recovery of money.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed.   

                        3. Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4. Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced 1 document which was marked as Ext.A1.  The opposite party has not filed proof affidavit.  On going through Ext.A1 it can be seen that the agreement was made between the complainant and the opposite party for constructing the building for an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-.  But the complainant alleged that the opposite party has only constructed the building for Rs.13,00,000/- even though he has received Rs.16,00,000/- as per the agreement.  But the complainant has not produced any evidence before this Commission to prove that the worth of the construction is Rs.13,00,000/- and also the materials used for the construction is of lower quality.  The complainant ought to have taken out an expert commissioner to report the nature of construction of the building.  But she had not done that.  The complainant has not proved that the construction was worth only Rs.13,00,000/- and also there is no evidence to prove that the opposite party demanded an extra amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the construction in addition to Rs.16,00,000/-.  The complainant has not proved that there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party.              

In the result the complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 11^th  day of November,  2024.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 374/2021

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT