ADV., RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complainant filed this complaint to get the damage sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The original complaint is filed to realize the damage sustained to the complainant from the opp.party, who is a contractor. The opp.party has not completed the building construction as per the terms and conditions in the agreement executed by the parties. The opp.party has a construction company registered in the name of Sara Constructions at Punalur. The conditions in the said construction was prepared by the opp.party in his company’s letter pad. Both parties after understanding the same made the required corrections and alterations in the condition and the contractor has agreed the said corrections and signed in the said conditions wherever corrections are made. As per the agreement the opp.party agreed to complete the construction work within 6 months from 7.3.2005 and handover the key to the complainant. The total agreed was Rs.7,50,000/- ie. Rs. 340/- per square feet. But the opp.party received a total amount of Rs.8,06,166/- and not completed the construction work as per the terms of the agreement. So the complainant filed this complaint to realize an amount of Rs.1,61,300/-. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is not maintainable since there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. There is no such pleading in the complaint to that effect also Hence the complaint may be dismissed in limine. All the averments and allegations made in para 4 of the complaint are false and hence denied. It is true that the time stipulated in the contract is for 6 months. The said period was extended by mutual consent. Further the construction work was done by the opp.party as per the direction of the complainant. The construction work was done not in accordance with the contract. The materials used are not as stipulated by the contract. The construction work was done under the supervision of a qualified Civil engineer. The husband of the complainant has prevented the opp.party from completing the construction work and also the complainant is not ready to make payment to the opp.party. The opp.party received a lawyers notice and to send a detailed reply notice. The non completion of the construction work is not due to any willful act of the opp.party. If the complainant is ready to settle the amount due to the opp.party the said work could be completed. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P7 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked POINTS Complainant’s case is that the opp.party has not completed the building construction with the fixed time as per the terms and conditions in the agreement. According to the opp.party there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part. Opp.party further contended that the time limit prescribed in the agreement was extended by mutual consent. The construction was also done not in accordance with the approved plan due to the request of the complainant. The construction work was stopped not by the opp.party but the husband of the complainant prevented the opp.party from completing the construction work. The opp.party suffered huge loss.Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint. For proving the complainant’s case an expert commissioner [PW.1] was appointed. PW.1 has filed the report and mahazer. The Commissioner explained each and every unfinished work and the required cost. As per the expert commission report prepared by PW.1 it is clear that the opp.party has not completed the construction work within the time fixed as per the agreement executed by both parties. Opp.party’s version is that the construction work was stopped because the complainant’s husband prevented the opp.party from completing the work. Moreover the opp.party contented that the complainant has requested the opp.party to vary from the terms of contract. But the opp.party failed to prove his said version by adducing evidence. For proving opp.party’s version that he spent huge amount than the agreement, he filed application for appointing an expert and the expert filed report which was marked as Ext. C1 series with objection of the complainant.. In Ext. C1 series the total cost of the construction comes Rs.9,39,600/- . Since Ext. C1 series is objected by the complainant for proving Ext. C1 series the opp.party ought to have examine the commissioner who prepared Ext. C1 series. Hence Ext. C1 series cannot be accepted as an evidence of the opp.party’s contention. In the result IA.155/07 filed by the opp.party is dismissed. Through Ext. P1 and P2 Commission report and mahazer, the complainant could prove that the opp.party has not completed the construction work within the time fixed in the agreement. Hence there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party. So the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- [one lakh] to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on the side of opp.party. Opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the proceeding. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the day of 2010. I N D E XList of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – M.M. Khan PW.2. –K. Salim List of witnesses for the complainant P1.- agreement P2. – Receipts P3. – Agreement P4. – Registered notice P5. – Postal receipt P7. – Acknowledgement card P7. – Power of attorney C1. – Mahazor and sketch List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Shyju List of documents for the opp.party D1. Lawyer notice. | 
