Date of Filing : 03.11.2021
Date of Disposal : 22.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR. B.A., B.L., ....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.13/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Mr.P.R.Ramadoss, S/o.Rangan,
No.38, Vadaku Mada Street,
Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Mr.Gopi, SU.C Builders,
No.1/393, Ayattur Main Road,
No.87, Veppampattu Village & Post,
Thiruvallur District.
2.A.V.Janakiraman, SU.C.Builders,
No.255, 2nd Street,
Anna Nagar, Veppampattur Village & Post,
Thiruvallur District.
3.Mr.Babu, SU.C Builders,
No.1/393, Ayattur Main Road,
No.87, Veppampattu Village & Post,
Thiruvallur District.
4.Mr.Saravanan, SU.C Builders,
No.1/393, Ayattur Main Road,
No.87, Veppampattu Village & Post,
Thiruvallur District. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : party in person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in the matter of construction along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- towards damages and compensation to the complainant for the negligent, sand robbery, incomplete work and breach of contract along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant had submitted that for the construction of an old age home in the property absolutely belonging to him, he approached the opposite parties and an agreement was entered between them on 31.03.2012 for construction of a home measures 21 feet North South and 16 feet East West and including material rate fixed at of Rs.1170/- per square feet totally Rs.3,92,827/- for 336 square feet. On the initial stage Rs.1,80,000/- was paid in the 1st installment to the opposite parties on several dates i.e. on 29.03.2012, 30.03.2012, 31.03.2012, 07.04.2012, 18.04.2012 and 02.05.2012. As per agreement the construction has to be completed within 90 days but till filing of the complaint the work was not completed and only the basement was completed with 6 feet wall and nothing extra work was done by the opposite parties. Though several notices and intimations were sent to the opposite parties they did not turn up and did not reply to the complainant’s request. Further the opposite parties also cheated the complainant by digging the construction site for about 10 feet and had sold sand to sand mafia by having link with them. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed by the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- towards damages and compensation to the complainant for the negligent, sand robbery, incomplete work and breach of contract along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7. In spite of sufficient opportunities and notice the opposite parties did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 03.10.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in the matter of construction as against the agreed terms found in the agreement dated 31.03.2012 and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point:1
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Construction Agreement between the parties dated 31.03.2012 was marked as Ex.A1;
Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties was marked as Ex.A2;
Acknowledgement card for the proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 09.02.2015 was marked as Ex.A4;
Acknowledgement card for the proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A5;
Complaint made by the complainant to the Sevvapet Police Station dated 0207.2014 was marked as Ex.A6;
Photographs was marked as Ex.A7;
The complainant argued that he approached the opposite parties to construct an old age home and in furtherance an agreement was entered dated 31.03.2012. It is submitted that the 1st opposite party received money on different dates amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- towards construction and in June 2012 went to see the building, the complainant found feet down. On enquiring the 1st opposite party replied that the third parties are not cooperating, however he assured that he would complete the construction as early as possible. Thus in spite of several request and approaching the Police Authorities no purpose was solved. Thus aggrieved the complainant approached this commission and sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On perusal of the pleadings and materials produced by the complainant we could see that vide Ex.A1 agreement dated 31.03.2012 an agreement for construction was entered between the complainant and the opposite parties in the land belonging to the complainant. Further we could find that the opposite parties had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.1,80,000/- from the complainant. Vide Ex.A2 we could see that the complainant had issued notice to the opposite parties stating that inspite of receiving a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- the opposite parties did not finish the construction and had made construction only to the value of Rs.60,000/- and further also had caused damage to the construction site by digging sand illegally. The complaint made to the Sevapet Police Station was also produced by the complainant. The Photograph of the incomplete construction site was also produced along with the complaint.
On perusal of records we could see that the opposite parties had failed to act as agreed in the construction agreement entered between them. Though a receipt was issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- it is prima facia found that the construction was left in between by the opposite parties. To prove the allegation that the construction was stopped in half way though in certain case inspection is required but in the present case it is apparently seen that the opposite parties had left the work un attended in between. In such circumstances this commission feels that when it is proved to the satisfaction by the complainant no inspection and report is necessitated in the facts and circumstances. Thus we could safely conclude that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service. Our view is strengthened by the fact that the opposite parties have also failed to appear before this commission though sufficient notice was provided to them. Thus in the facts and circumstances we hold that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not acting in accordance with the agreement dated 31.03.2012 and causing hardship and mental agony to the complainant. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:
With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant as we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not completing the construction having the building in an incomplete stage, we direct the opposite parties to complete the construction or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- received from the complainant. Further for the hardship and mental agony caused to the complainant in his old age, we thought compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with refund would be the appropriate relief to the complainant. We also award Rs.5000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severely directed
a) to complete the construction as per terms in the agreement dated 31.03.2012 or in alternative to refund a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) received from the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 22nd day of November 2022.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 31.03.2012 Construction Agreement. Xerox
Ex.A2 19.12.2013 Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Acknowledgement cards. Xerox
Ex.A4 09.02.2015 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A5 ............... Acknowledgement cards. Xerox
Ex.A6 02.07.2014 Complaint made by the complainant to the Sevvapet Police Station. Xerox
Ex.A7 ............... Photographs. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:
Nil
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER I PRESIDENT
