Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/28

K.J.James - Complainant(s)

Versus

Titty Sebastian and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
Complaint Case No. CC/10/28
1. K.J.JamesKunnathumala(H), Rajakkandam.P.O,IdukkiIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. Titty Sebastian and 2 othersTharavathukkal(H),Rajakkavala,Puttady.P.O,IdukkiIdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sheela Jacob ,MemberHONORABLE Bindu Soman ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 26 Apr 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

DATE OF FILING : 3.2.2010.


 


 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2010


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER


 

C.C No.28/2010

Between

Complainant : K.J. James,

Kunnathumala House,

Rajakkandam P.O.,

Managalam Pady,

Idukki – 685 551.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Titty Sebastian,

Tharavathukkal House,

Rajakkavala,

Puttadi P.O.,

Idukki District.

2. Tinu Sebastrian,

Tharavathukkal House,

Rajakkavala,

Puttadi P.O.,

Idukki District.

3. Ammini Sebastian,

Tharavathukkal House,

Rajakkavala,

Puttadi P.O.,

Idukki District.


 

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant who is a mason, contracted with the opposite parties for constructing a house for him. An agreement was created between the opposite party and the complainant for the same. As per the agreement, the complainant constructed the building with the plinth area of 1098 square feet. The agreed rate of construction was Rs.925/square feet. The payment for the construction was in several stages and the opposite party agreed to pay the amount for each stage after the completion of each stage. But the opposite party never paid the 9% of the cost of the 4th stage of the construction and also the payment for the last stage was not given. The boundary wall is not yet constructed as per the agreement, which comes about Rs.25,000/- for the same. The complainant purchased the materials from several shops for the construction of the building without giving the payment. The opposite parties assured to give the balance amount after the construction of the building. The house warming was fixed on 14.9.2009 and the opposite parties told that the 1st opposite party is at Delhi so the payment will be done when the 1st opposite party arrives for house warming. Even though the 1st opposite party came for the house warming ceremony, the transaction is not yet closed and so the petition is filed for getting the balance payment of the construction of the house which amount to Rs.2,70,000/-.

2. The opposite party was absent and called exparte.

 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext. P1 & P2 marked on the side of the complainant.

         

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting the balance payment of the construction of the house done by the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that 1st opposite party and PW1 entered into an agreement for the construction of the residence of the opposite party and quotation for the construction was given by the PW1 which is marked as Ext.P1. As per the agreement, the complainant received Rs.20,000/- on 11.11.2008 and the balance amount should be paid in different stages of the work after completion of each stage. The receipt of the payment should be done on the agreement itself. PW1 agreed to complete the work on or before 11.6.2009. Both the parties agreed the same and they signed the agreement on 11.11.2008. The agreement is marked as Ext.P2. PW1 received an mount of Rs.8,60,000/- from the opposite party as per the agreement. PW1 is entitled to get Rs.1,70,000/- from the opposite party as per the agreement.
 

It is clear from the Ext.P1 quotation for construction, the detailed rates of each work of the construction, and the conditions of the work are also mentioned in the quotation Ext.P1. But as per Ext.P2 agreement along with the quotation which is created on 11.11.2008, the opposite party agreed to do the work of the building and the opposite party should complete the work on or before 11.6.2009. An advance of Rs.20,000/- was received on 11.11.2008. And it is also written in that agreement that the payment should be done in each stage of the work and after receiving each amount the complainant should give receipt on the agreement itself. If any loss caused by the act of any of the parties of the agreement, the party itself should responsible for it. But in the agreement it is written that the complainant received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.11.2008. There is no other receipt or any other initial for the payment done by the opposite party or received by the complainant in the Ext.P2 agreement. There is no document produced by the complainant to show that the complainant has received Rs.8,60,000/- from the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get the balance Rs.1,70,000/- from the opposite party. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that the complainant purchased the materials for the construction of the house of the complaint, No details of the payment done by the complainant produced and account for the construction also not delivered by the complainant, never produced any witness to show that the complainant purchased some materials for the construction of the work of the complaint.
 

There is only a receipt for Rs.1,00,000/- on the agreement produced by the complainant which is Ext.P2. No other details of the payment is done. So we think that the complainant failed to produce evidence to show that he is entitled to get the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- or any amount from the opposite party for the construction of the house. So there is no deficiency is proved against the opposite party. Moreover, the dispute is regarding an agreement for the construction of a building which is purely in civil nature and hence the petition dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum, on this the 26th day of April, 2010.
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX


 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - K.J. James.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

Nil.

Exhibits :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the quotation for the construction of the building given by the complainant.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the agreement dated 11.11.2008, between the complainant and opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

Nil.


 


 


[HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member