By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:

          This Consumer Case is filed by  Sunitha, W/o.  Vasanthan,  Chakkaraputhiyavalappil House, Sulthan BatheryTaluk  alleging deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party and the crux of the complaint is as follows.

          2. The Complainant states that in the year 2021 the Complainant and her family members decided to construct a new home after demolishing the old one and the Opposite Party who is acquainted  with the Complainant approached her and offered to under take the construction with a reasonable cost and showed plans and photographs of  some houses which he had constructed.  The Complainant had entrusted the construction work of her new residential home to him @ Rs.1000/- per sq.ft according to the plan which is approved by  Meenangady Grama Panchayath.  An agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party on 24.02.2022,  as per the agreement the Opposite Party has to complete the residential building having  the extent of  691sq.ft except the plumbing and electrical works within 6 months from the date of  agreement for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-.  The Complainant had paid the entire amount but the Opposite Party had failed to complete the construction within the stipulated period ie on  or before 30.08.2022. 

3. The Complainant  further alleges that the Opposite Party had caused inormous   difficulties during the entire period of construction,  altered  the plan, used low quality building materials, disproportionate  combination of  cement and sand were used  which all have contributed into  the construction of a substandard building and there by the building is rendered useless.  The Complainant further alleges that the Opposite Party had engaged workers who were not experts and most of them were irregular.  The Opposite party used the  bricks and other materials which were old and collected from demolished buildings.  The wood also used for construction was of Jack fruit tree instead of Teak.  The maximum amount spent by the Opposite Party for the construction shall be Rs.4,00,000/-.  The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party is duty bound to return the balance amount  of Rs.3,00,000/-   and the Complainant had to stay in the rented house for  3 months in addition and there by caused to pay Rs.24,000/-  as rent. On concluding the Complainant states that the Opposite  Party is duty bound to return an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-  with  12% interest from 30.08.2022 up to till date along with  other reliefs.

4. Upon notice from the Commission the Opposite Party appeared  but not filed  version in time and hence the Opposite Party is set exparte.

5. PW1 was examined and Ext.A1 marked.  Ext.A1 produced by the Complainant is the site approval and building permit issued by the  Secretary, Meenangady Grama Panchayath.  The annexure  is the approval  of plan of the proposal construction and no other evidence is produced by the Complainant.

6. The following are the important points to be examined by the Commission in this case.

1.  Whether the Complainant had proved  deficiency of service & unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If proved  the quantum of compensation and other reliefs to be awarded to the Complainant.

7.  Heard  the counsel and examined the matter in detail:- On going through the

complaint it can be seen from the statement of Complainant that she had entrusted the construction work of a building to the Opposite Party.  The Complainant had not produced the agreement executed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party even though it is stated in the complaint that the Complainant and Opposite Party had entered  into an agreement.  The Complainant  further states that she had paid an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-  to the Opposite Party for the purpose of construction.  The Complainant had miserably  failed to produce any documents to establish that she had paid the said amount to the Opposite Party.  Further the Complainant had not produced any documents to prove  that the materials used for the construction of the said building is of inferior quality.  More over the Complainant had not produced any assessment of valuation certificate of an expert to the effect that the construction cost is only Rs.4,00,000/- as stated by the Complainant.  In this connection the Commission cannot evaluate the  merit of the arguments of the Complainant  without any records.  Hence  this Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant had failed to establish  point No.1  on merit and hence the Commission had not evaluated point No.2  and therefore the following orders are issued.

          On the basis of the above findings there is no merit in the complaint and hence the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me  and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 3^rd   day of  October 2023.

Date of filing:03.12.2022

                                                                   PRESIDENT    : Sd/-

                                                                   MEMBER        :  Sd/-   

                                                                   MEMBER        :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           Sunitha. C.K.                           Complainant.                          

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.   

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1.      Site Approval and Building Permit. dt:12.01.2022.     

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

                                                                                    PRESIDENT  :  Sd/-                        

MEMBER     :  Sd/-

MEMBER     :  Sd/-