IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 30th  day of  December,  2023

Present:  Sri.Manulal.V.S, President          

          Sri.K.M.Anto, Member

CC No. 359/2023 (Filed on 26/10/2023)

                                                             Complainant                               :     Dharshini.S,

                                                                                                                      Vellamkulam House,                                                         

                                                                                                                      Channanikadu P.O,

                                                                                                                      Kottayam – 686 533.                                               

                                                                                                               Vs.

                                                               Opposite party                           :      Suresh P.K,

                                                                                                                         Panackavila House,

                                                                                                                         Thukalasserry P.O,

                                                                                                                         Thiruvalla  -  689 115,

                                                                                                                          Pathanamthitta District.

                                                 O R D E R

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.

The complainant was allotted a house under Life Project in Pampady Panchayath. The opposite party was entrusted for the construction of the house. The opposite  party  agreed  to  complete  the  construction  of  the  house  for Rs 6,75,000/-. The complainant had given Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.44,000/- to the opposite party. The opposite party abandoned the work and not even answering the phone calls. A petition was given in Pampady Police station, but the opposite party did not appear before the police. This act of the opposite party had caused much mental agony and sufferings to the complainant. This complaint is filed for getting the refund of Rs.2,94,000/- from the opposite party and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with Rs.30,000/- as cost for this litigation.

On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was forwarded to the opposite party, but returned as unclaimed and hence  considered  as  deemed service. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits A1 to A3. The opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite party was set ex-parte.

On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points :

(1) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party ?

(2)  If so, what are the reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider point number 1 and 2 together.

POINTS  1 & 2 :-

On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record it is evident from Ext.A1 agreement that the opposite party had entered into a contract with the  complainant for the construction of the house having plinth area 435 square feet for an amount of Rs.6,75,000/- . Ext.A2 Google pay receipts shows that the complainant had given Rs.2,94,000/- in five instalments to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to appear before the Commission and to challenge the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contrary evidence we are inclined to accept the contention of the complainant. The act of opposite party in abandoning the construction site after the initial works and not completing the construction work of the house after accepting payments is deficiency in service on their part. The complainant failed to adduce any expert evidence to prove the quantum of construction work done by the opposite party. However it is evident that the act of the opposite party had caused much mental agony and sufferings to the complainant, who is trying to construct a house under the Life Project. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that allowing compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant is just and proper in this case.

The complaint is allowed and we pass the following order :

The opposite party is directed to give Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as cost for this litigation.

The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of  copy of this order failing which the amounts shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  30th  day of  December, 2023

         Sri.K.M.Anto,  Member           Sd/-     

         Sri.Manulal.V.S,  President     Sd/-     

APPENDIX :

Exhibit from the side of the Complainant :

A1   -   Copy of agreement dated 11/02/2023 executed

            between the complainant and the opposite party

A2  -   Copy of screen shot of Google pay receipts (5 instalments)

A3  -   Copy of acknowledgement of petition dated 03/09/2023

           lodged by the complainant before the Pampady Police Station

Exhibit from the side of Opposite party :

Nil.

                                                                                       By Order,

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                             Assistant Registrar