DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 07th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing:30/01/2020
CC/22/2020
N. Damodharan - Complainant
Kunnath House,Vadakkumury Post,
Athipotta,Alathur,
Palakkad- 678 544.
(Party in person)
Vs
Sreejith.A.B - Opposite Party
All Tech Project,Management Consultants,
18/818, Puthur Road,Near Head Post Office,
Koppam,Palakkad-678 001.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1.Brief facts of the complaint
The complainant entered in to an agreement with the opposite party for the construction of upstair work in his house. As per the agreement, the cost of construction was Rs.1450/- per square feet. After the construction work was over, the opposite party charged excess amount than the agreed amount. The excess amount charged are detailed in the complaint as below.
1. Cost of watering the construction work per day Rs.500/- Total cost for 46 days- Rs.23,000/-.
2. The cost of inside stair case- Rs.12,000/-
The amount charged from complainant- Rs.29,000/-
Excess amount collected Rs.17,000/-.
3. The cost for fitting bathroom door-Rs.1600/- per door.
The amount charged- Rs.4000/- per door.
Excess amount collected- Rs.4800/-
4.The agreed amount for the construction of Balcony having 32 sqft- Since the balcony is without roof, the opposite party agreed to charge Rs.1000/- per sqft and the total amount is Rs.32,000/- . Instead of deducting Rs.14,400/- from the total amount, the opposite party added Rs.34,000/- .
Excess amount collected is Rs.34,000+14,400/-=48,400/-.
Thus the opposite party had collected an excess amount of Rs.93,200/- from the complainant. The complainant had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.93,200/- because of the Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and suffered mental agony on account of that. So he filed this complaint for getting that amount from the opposite party. He also claims Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him and Rs.5000/- for time loss and other inconveniences suffered by him.
2. After admitting the complaint, notice was served on opposite party which returned stating ‘Unclaimed’. So notice is “ Deemed to be served” on the opposite party and he was set exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit in evidence and after that there was no representation from his part and he informed his inconvenience to attend the Commission as he was out of station for his work. Ext A1 & A2 were marked with a condition that Ext A2 will not be taken to be a detailed invoice as stated in proof affidavit, in the absence of supporting evidence.
3. Main points to be considered.
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
3. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.
4. Points 1,2 & 3
As per the complaint, the complainant entrusted the construction of the upstair of his house with the opposite party and entered in to an agreement for that purpose. The area of construction as per the agreement was 650 sqft at Rs.1450/- per sqft. The complainant’s main grievance is that the opposite party had charged excess amount in different heads than the agreed amount.
5. The complainant had produced 2 documents in support of his claim which were marked as Ext A1 & A2. Ext A1 is the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party . Along with that the complainant had submitted the terms and conditions issued by the opposite party with respect to the plan. Page 6 of that Terms and conditions enumerates certain conditions under the heading “Note”. The 2nd conditions in that “Note” is that
ii) “Water curing should be done by the owner” .Complainant’s claim no(1) relates to the water curing. According him ,he arranged a person for watering for 46 days with a payment of Rs.500/- per day. So he had spent a total of Rs.23,000/- on that account.
As per the agreement, water curing has to be done by the owner and so the complainant’s claim against it, will not stand.
6. Another condition in the ‘Note’ mentioned in clause(vii) “Additions and alterations if any will invite additional charges and the same may please be paid during the phase itself.” Ext A1 also confirms this condition.
Ext A2, the detailed invoice shows the 2nd item as:- Balcony of area 34 sqft costing Rs.34,000/-. As per their agreement the cost for construction is Rs.1450/- per sqft. Since the balcony is without roofing , the opposite party agreed to charge Rs.1000/-per sqft and he had charged in accordance with that .In Ext A2, the cost of Balcony is shown as 34 x 1000=34000. So the complainant is not entitled to get the amount claimed under this head.
7. Other two amounts claimed by him relate to the cost of inside stair case and bathroom doors. Complainant’s grievance is that the total cost for inside staircase is Rs.12,000/-, but the opposite party charged Rs.29,000/- from him. Similarly the total cost of the bathroom door as per the market rate at that time is Rs.1600/- per door; but the opposite party charged Rs.4000/- per door.
8. Nowhere in the agreement they have stated the cost of the items. Other than this submission, the complainant had not produced any evidence to show the actual/agreed amount and the excess amount charged by opposite party in contravention.
As per Ext A2,item number 4: Additional bill, the cost of bathroom door is a) 2 x 2000=Rs.4000
b) The cost of stair case inner=Rs. 29,000/-
9. Ext A2 shows the total area as 876.5 sqft and the cost per sqft Rs.1450/- . So the total amount charged for construction is
876.5 x 1450=12,70,925/-
So it appears that even though initially the agreement was for constructing upstairs with 650 sqft, after the construction the area is 876.5 sqft.
In addition to that the opposite party has constructed Balcony having 34 sqft area and charged Rs.1000/- per sqft.
As per the agreement(Ext A1) the complainant after measuring out the area on completion of the construction is bound to give the additional costs incurred during the construction if any. Complainant himself admits that he paid the entire amount claimed by the opposite party after completion of the construction.
Mere submission that excess amount was charged by the opposite party without any supporting evidence is not sufficient to prove the complainant’s claim.
10. The complainant has no complaints about the construction work done by the opposite party nor the measurement of the constructed area and the materials and their quality. This shows that he has paid the entire amount after completely satisfying with the work of the opposite party. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
In the result , the complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties have to bear their cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 07th day of June, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Agreement dated 18/10/2016 entered into between the complainant and
the opposite party.
Ext.A2 - Detailed invoice issued by the opposite party.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
Fair copy on : 20/06/2022.
Despatched on:
