Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/993/2023

K JAYACHANDRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUGANTHI C R - Opp.Party(s)

JP DHANYASREE AND U SAIMANI

29 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

F.A. No. 992 of 2023

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.29 of 2022 dated 23.09.2022 on the file of DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu].

 

Wednesday, the 15^th day of November 2023

G. Venkatesan

S/o. Govindaraja Naicker

Building Contractor

216, Ammanampakkam

Chengalpattu - 603 109.                                        .. Appellant/                                                                       1^st Opposite party

 

 

Vs.

 

1.  K. Ravi

     S/o.  Krishnan

 

2.  Chitra

     W/o. Ravi

 

     Both residing at

     87, Ammanampakkam

     Kollamedu, Vallam Uratchi

     Chengalpattu-603 109                             .. Respondents 1 & 2/

                                                                           Complainants

 

3.   S. Jai Sankar

      S/o. Subramani, Proprietor

      Jai Constructions

      24, Sahabuddin Street

      Vallam,

      Chengalpattu- 603 002.                               .. 3^rd Respondent/

                                                                        2^nd Opposite party

4.  Overseer

     Rep. by the

     Block Development Officer

     Kattankulathur Block

     Block Development Office

     Chengalpattu- 603 203.                            .. 4^th Respondent/

                                                                        3^rd Opposite party

 

 Counsel for the Appellant/

        Opposite party No.1                   : M/s. K.R. Neelambar

 

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd Respondents/

                Complainants                    :  M/s. Vasugi Ramanan

 

Respondents 3 & 4/

        Opposite parties 2 & 3                :  Given up

 

 

                The Respondents 1 and 2 as Complainants have filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint, in part.  Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu dated 23.09.2022 in C.C. No.29 of 2022.

 

                This appeal came before me for final hearing today, on 15.11.2023.  Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, counsel for respondents 1 & 2, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

 

 

ORDER

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)

                The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

        2. The case of the complainants before the District Commission is that they are beneficiaries under the Prime Minister’s Rural Housing Scheme, since they belong to “Scheduled Tribe”.  As per the scheme priority No.21, MGNREGS-TN 01 007 034 001/ 2347-A and their PMAY -G Number is TN1209604, they are entitled for the amount sanctioned by the 3^rd opposite party.  As per permit, they are eligible for Rs.1,20,000/- towards RCC work and Rs.5,00,000/- towards roofing.  Out of the said amount, on 30.07.2019, the 3^rd opposite party credited Rs.26,029/- to the account of the complainant, as first installment.  Exploiting the illiteracy of the complainants, the 1^st opposite party had fabricated an agreement dated 16.08.2017 for construction of 323 sq.ft., for a sum of Rs.3,23,000/-. The document was forged with the signature of the 1^st complainant and one Mr.Devendran, who has nothing to do with this project.  The complainants had paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the 1^st opposite party.  Even after taking such a huge amount, the 1^st opposite party had abandoned the construction work.  Hence, the complainants hired the services of the 2^nd opposite party, who also created a construction agreement for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/-.  The complainants paid a total sum of Rs.1,09,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the complainants faced financial crisis and was unable to make further payments.  Since the construction at their site was left incomplete by both the opposite parties, the Government did not pay the further installments to complete the construction work.  Since the 3^rd opposite party did not supervise the construction work properly, the opposite parties 1 and 2 had left the construction work incomplete.  Therefore, the complainants issued legal notices dated 13.03.2018 and 11.04.2018 to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, respectively.  But the opposite parties did not reply to the same.  Therefore, the complainants have filed a complaint to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2, jointly and severally, to complete the construction work and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service on their part. 

 

                3.     Though notice was served on the opposite parties they have failed to appear before the District Commission.  Hence, the opposite parties 1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 13.05.2022.  The complaint against the 3^rd opposite party was dismissed as “not pressed” on 17.06.2022.   Consequently, the District Forum passed an ex-parte order allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite parties 1 & 2, jointly and severally, to complete the construction work as per the agreed specifications in Ex.A4 within two months from the date of receipt of the order; to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and mental agony suffered by the complainants and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  Further, the District Commission has directed the opposite parties to pay the said amount within two months from the date of the order. failing which the same shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of the order till the date of realization.     

 

        4.  Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party, praying for setting aside the order of the District Commission and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

 

        5. Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant/1^st opposite party submitted that the District Commission had passed the ex-parte order against the Regulation 10(2) of the Consumer Regulation 2005.  The complainants are not consumers, as they have received subsidy from the Government.  Further, the averments made in the complaint are contrary to the facts stated in the legal notice dated 11.04.2018, which is marked as Ex.A4.  In Ex.A7, it has been clearly stated that the 2^nd opposite party had utilized the building material left by the appellant/1^st opposite party.  Admittedly, the complainants have paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/1^st opposite party for the foundation work and Rs.1,09,000/- to the 2^nd opposite party to raise the construction over the foundation.  Both the opposite parties have done their work for the payment received by them.  The District Commission ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner along with qualified Engineer to assess the value of the work done by the opposite parties.  In the absence of expert opinion, the order passed by the District Commission is not legally sustainable.  The District Commission has set the opposite parties 1 & 2 ex-parte on 13.05.2022, which is the 1^st hearing date and hence the same is not legally sustainable. Hence, the appellant/1^st opposite party prayed this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and afford them an opportunity to contest the case on merits. 

 

                6. When the case came up before this Commission on 14.11.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ 1^st opposite party and therefore, in order to give a chance to the appellant/1^st opposite party, to agitate his right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the 1^st opposite party in not appearing before the District Commission, this Commission imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission.  The said cost was also paid today and since the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with, the appeal is allowed by remanding the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.

 

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu in C.C. No.29/2022 dt.23.09.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Commission, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

The District Commission is directed to issue notice to all the parties for their appearance and on such appearance, directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same within three months according to law and on merits.

The amount deposited by the appellant / 1^st opposite party shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

 

 

                                                                                  R. SUBBIAH

                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/November/2023