IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday, the 31st day of December, 2011
Filed on 08.11.2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member) in
CC/No.291/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Radhamoni Amma V.K. Sri. Suresh Kumar.S.
Kalavihar, Aroor P.O. Suresh Bhavan
Alappuzha – 688 534 Contonment (S), Kollam – 1
(By Adv. Sreekanth & Adv.Avaneesh V.N.) (By Adv.T.N.Maheswaran Pillai
Associates)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows: - The complainant was desirous of putting up a new residential building. Her daughter- in- law introduced the opposite party who agreed to construct the building of 2950 sq.feet for an amount of Rs.33,23,000/-(Rupees thirty three lakhs and twenty three thousand only). As agreed the opposite party started the work on 28th August 2009 on assurance of completion of the same on or before 31st May 2010. The opposite party procured a total amount of Rs.26,00,000/-(Rupees twenty six lakhs only) from the complainant through some installments till 2nd January 2010. Thereafter the opposite party ceased to work any further. Notwithstanding the complainant’s earnest effort, the opposite party neither continued the work nor turned up before the complainant. The opposite party purposefully used materials of inferior quality for putting up the new construction. The iron road is visible way where in the concrete. The entire work effected by the opposite party is imperfect and defective. The opposite party received an amount of Rs.26,00,000/- from the complainant, but effected the work only for Rs.16,81,769/- (Rupees sixteen lakhs eighty one thousand seven hundred and sixty nine only), and as such the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.9,18,231/- (Rupees nine lakhs eighteen thousand two hundred and thirty one only) to the complainant. The opposite party’s willful commission and omission caused inestimable mental and monetary woes to the complainant. The service of the opposite party is woefully deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party is a reputed contractor. He constructed the building perfectly, more particularly his niece was to reside therein. According to the opposite party, he received Rs.26 lakhs, but invested Rs.29 lakhs for the construction of the complainant’s residential building. The building was not completed, but the same was not due to the deficiency on the part of the opposite party, but for the non-cooperation of the complainant. The opposite party is very much prepared to put up the complainant’s building provided the opposite party is tendered the balance amount required for the completion. As a matter of fact, the complainant is liable to pay the opposite party the balance amount of Rs.3 lakhs for the work effected by the opposite party, the opposite party vehemently contends. The complainant’s contention to the effect that the opposite party has completed the work for only an amount of Rs.16,81,769/- is absolutely false and likewise the contention that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.9,18,231/- to the complainant is contrary to truth. The complainant is without any basis, and the same is to be dismissed with a direction to the complainant to pay the opposite party the balance some for the work he has done.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the testimony of PWl (Proof affidavit), PW2 & PW3, and the documents marked as Exts. Al and A2. The Commission Report was marked a Ext.Xl. On the side of the opposite party, save filing version no specific evidence was adduced.
4. Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up
for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party effected the work for only an amount of Rs.16,81,769/- ?
(b) Whether the work so performed by the opposite party is defective?
( c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. It appears that the opposite party has not denied nor has disputed the amount received from the complainant. Admittedly, the opposite party procured a total amount of Rs.26 lakhs from the complainant. According to the complainant, despite the opposite party obtained Rs.26 lakhs from the complainant, but completed the work for only an amount of Rs.16,81,769/-. Also the work completed by the opposite party is obviously defective. On the other hand the opposite party contends that on receiving the aforesaid amount the opposite party has perfectly performed the work for an amount of Rs.29 lakhs. In this manner, the complainant is liable to pay amount of Rs.3 lakhs for the work effected by the opposite party. In this context, the immediate short questions that arise for consideration are to what extent the opposite party has effected the work entrusted to him by the complainant and whether the work so done by the complainant is defective. Bearing these questions lively in mind, we went through the materials placed before us by the parties .. Concededly, the work entrusted to the opposite party was left unfinished. It seems that both the parties throw the blame for the same on each other’s shoulders. We perused the complaint, version, depositions and other materials placed on record before us. On a perusal of the Ext.X1 commission report, it is unfolded that the opposite party has completed the work only for an amount of Rs.19,19,146/-. The Ext. Xl commission Report gives out a detailed data of the cost of the work done by the opposite party. The opposite party has not adopted any steps to discredit the otherwise clear evidence of the commissioner. Coming down to the complainant’s contention as to the defective nature of the work done, the opposite party did not move a little figure to challenge the same. In this backdrop, we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence let in by the complainant. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay back to the complainant an amount of Rs.6,80,854/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty thousand eight hundred and fifty four only) viz. the cost of the work done deducted from the amount the opposite party procure from the complainant with 9% interest from the date of the complaint till the recovery of the said amount (Rs.26,00,000/- (twenty six lakhs) – Rs.19,19,146/- (nineteen lakhs nineteen thousand one hundred and forty six). The opposite party is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for deficiency of service and mental agony meted out to the complainant and a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - (Proof affidavit)
PW2 - Agnes lovely Francis (Witness)
PW3 - D.G. Kantha (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt for Rs.26,00,000/-
Ext.A2 - Estimate
Ext.X1 - Commission Report
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
