IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 30th day of October, 2015
Filed on 24.10.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.274/2014
between
Complainants:- Opposite Party:-
- Sri. Alex Mathew Sri. Subair Sulthan
Vaniyapurackal Veedu Owner of Sincere Builders
Purackadu P.O. Nellikkunnam Veedu
Ambalappuzha Purakkadu P.O.
Alappuzha – 688 561 Alappuzha – 688 561
(By Adv. C. Vidhu) (By Adv. S. Jyothikumar)
- Sri. Vivin Thomas
P.J. Bhavan, Purakkad P.O.
Ambalappuzha
Alappuzha – 688 561
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The first complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for constructing a house for which he has accepted a sum of Rs.7 lakhs towards advance by way of cheque No.101418 of SBT Purakkad. The said amount was paid by the second complainant for and on behalf of the first complainant. Complainant contacted the opposite party several times, but there was no result. Thereafter complainant sent a registered letter dated 13.10.2014 to the opposite party and it was accepted by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.7 lakhs with interest along with cost and compensation.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The opposite party has not entered into a contract with the first complainant. The second complainant is a person who is doing a business of advancing money with interest. The second complainant has advanced Rs.7 lakhs with interest @ of Rs.3/- to the opposite party in the year 2013. The opposite party returned the amount by 3 installments to the second complainant. While allowing the loan, the opposite party has given a blank signed cheque to the second complainant towards security. The opposite party denied to pay interest as demanded by the complainant. The complaint is filed alleging false claim against the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. From the part of the opposite party no oral or documentary evidence adduced.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
3) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the first complainant, he entered into a contract with the opposite party for the construction of a residential building. In order to substantiate that allegation the complainant has produced the contract agreement which marked as Ext.A1. The further allegation of the complainant is that he had already paid Rs.7 lakhs to the complainant towards advance amount. According to the complainant even though the said amount was collected by the opposite party he failed to construct the building as agreed. In order to prove that allegation the Manager of the SBT Purakkad was examined as PW2. While examining the PW2 he categorically stated that the cheque No.101418 was honoured on 8.10.2013, the drawer’s name is mentioned as Subair Koya. In addition to that the statement of account of the second complainant is also produced and which marked as Ext.A4. On verifying Ext.A4 it shows that an amount of Rs.7 lakhs was debited through cheque No.101418 on 8.10.2013. The contention of the opposite party is that he has not executed any agreement with the complainant. The further contention of the opposite party is that the second complainant has given an amount of Rs.7 lakhs as loan and he had already paid back the amount. In order to prove that contention, the opposite party has not produced any documents. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party. In the absence of any evidence against the allegation of the complainant, the contention of the opposite party is not sustainable. The failure on the part of the opposite party in executing their work as per Ext.A1 agreement amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.7 lakhs (Rupees seven lakhs only) with 8% interest from the date of 8.10.2013 till realization to the first complainant. Since the primary relief is granted there is no order as to compensation. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2015.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Alex Mathew (Witness)
PW2 - T. Thyagaraja (Witness)
Ext.A1(series) - Contract agreement
Ext.A2 - Copy of the saving bank passbook of Vivin Thomas – SBT (Subject to
objection)
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter dated 13.10.2014
Ext.A4 - Statement of A/c of Sri. Vivin Thomas
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
