CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2013.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 25/04/2012
CC/81/2012
Velayudhan Nair,
S/o. Krishnan Nair, Karuvalli House, - Complainant
Kavalapara, Shornur,
Palakkad – 679 523
(By Adv. Manoj Ambat)
V/s
Unnikrishnan, - Opposite party
Kuruppamthodiyil house, Panjal,
Cheruthuruthi, Thrissur – 679 531
(By Adv. M. Abdul Gafoor)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
Complaint in brief :-
The complainant had entered in to an agreement with the opposite party dated 16/11/2011 for constructing a concrete building adjacent to his house. The said agreement envisaged the opposite party to construct basement, bhithi, roof and windows of wood, electric wiring and plumbing, to have laid vetrified tiles in the floor and to install fittings including Europeon Closet in the bathroom and also undertake painting. The work ought to be completed within 5 months from the agreement and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as advance. But the opposite party had abandoned the work. Despite repeated requests the opposite party has not completed the work. The work done by the opposite party is only for an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The act of opposite party caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. So the complainant praying an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following.
The alleged agreement was executed on 16/09/2011 but in the complaint it is stated as 16/11/2011. The opposite party has completed the construction of basement of the complainants building and the basement has been filled with mud, watered and made it paste to make it fit for constructing. The opposite party has put up the concrete belt alround. 100 Concrete solid blocks also have been bought to the site. For these work opposite party has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- inclusive of labour charges. For construction of the super structure municipal permit is necessary. The complainant has not obtained necessary permit for construction of his building. To get river sand, necessary pass has to be obtained from the competant authority. The opposite party is put to considerable difficulty and hardship due to the fact that no permit is obtained by the complainant. Work costing more than Rs. 1lakh have already been done. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext. A1 and C1 series marked on the side of the complainant. Complainant and opposite party cross examined as PW1 and DW1 respectively.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- If so what is the relief and cost?
Issues I and II
The complainant is regarding deficiency in service on the part of opposite party with regard to the housing construction. The complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party dtd. 16/09/2011 for constructing a concrete building adjacent to his house. The said agreement is marked as Ext. A1. In the complaint the agreement date is stated as 16/11/2011. This agreement envisaged the opposite party to construct the Bhithi and roof, plaster the same, to make door and windows of wood, electric wiring and plumbing, to have laid vetrified tiles in the floor and to install fittings including European closet in the bathroom and also undertake painting. The work should be completed within 5 months of the agreement
and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.i1 lakh as advance. But the opposite party has not completed the work as promised. According to complainant the opposite party has done the work only costing an amount of Rs. 30,000/-. Opposite party states that they have constructed the basement of the complainants building and made it fit for constructing, put up the concrete belt alround 1000 Concrete solid block also have been brought to the site. For this works the opposite party has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/-. For construction of the super structure muncipal permit is necessary. The complainant has not obtained the same. Also the complainant has not taken the pass for getting river sand. An expert commissioner was appointed and filed detailed report marked as Ext. C1 series.
The agreement and advance payment is admitted by the opposite party. According to C1 series, the work is not completed as per the agreement dated. 16/09/2011 between the parties. The work of wall and roof is completed properly. But it is not plastered both sides. The doors and windows has not fixed. Only the frames made of concreted were there. There was no doors and windows which was kept to install there. The work for electrification and plumbing works was not started. Vetrified tiles in floors and European closet were not fixed, painting was also not done. As per commissioner report the estimate cost for the work done is Rs. 1,64,178.10. To complete the work of the building an amount of Rs. 2,02,718.00 more is required.
According to opposite party he was abonden the work as the complainant had not got the building permit and sand permit. At the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that ]md-a-WÂ sImmWv work sNbvXXv. Complete work \v agreement3 lakhs Bbn-cp¶p thn-bn-cp-¶-Xv
In the agreement the amount is written as Rs.2,75,000/- is decided for completing the work. In Ext. A1 it is not stated that getting building permit is the responsibility of the complainant. Even after the execution of the agreemt opposite party did not inform this fact to the complainant . If all the work was done by M sand the sand pass is not necessary.
As per agreeement the complete work should be completed within 5 months from the date of agreement. As per Ext.C1 series the work is not completed. Total amount for complete work is stipulated as Rs. 2,75,000/- . The complainant has paid 1 lakh as advance. Balance amount should be paid in 3 instalments as per the status of the work done. These facts are evident from Ext. A1 document. But at the time of cross examination the complainant deposed that “ complete work \v agreeement
3 lakhs Bbn-cp¶p thn-bn-cp-¶-Xv.”
As per the commission report Ext. C1 series dtd. 13/09/2012 the opposite party has done the work which costs Rs. 1,64,178.10. Complainant has not a case that he has paid this much amount to the opposite party. In cross examination complainant deposed that he has paid Rs.16,000/- more to the opposite party over and above Rs. 1 lakh. But no document is produced. At the time of cross examination the complainant admitted that the old shed was removed at the cost of opposite party.
From the above discussions we are of the view that opposite party has done the work costs Rs. 1,64,178.10 for the complainant for which the complainant has paid only Rs.1 lakh to the opposite party. So that we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint dismissed. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2013.
Smt. Seena. H
President
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Agreement between the complainant and opposite party dtd. 16/09/2011.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1- K. Velayudhan Nair
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1- Unnikrishnan.K
Commission Report
C1 series – Commissioner report 2 nos.
Cost allowed
Nil
Forwarded by / By order
Senior Superintendent
Fair copy on: 17/01/2013
Despatched on:
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of March, 2013
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 series – Copy of lawyer notice and receipt sent by the complainant to the opposite parties dtd. 27/09/2012.
Ext. A2 – Acknowledgement cards orginal .
Ext. A3 – Reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dtd. 10/10/2012.
Ext. A4 – Pass book of the complainant issued by State Bank of India.
Ext. A5 – Bills issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dtd. 09/02/2012.
Ext. A6 - Bills issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dtd. 30/06/2012.
Ext. A7 - Bills issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dtd. 12/07/2012.
Ext. A8 - Bills issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dtd. 15/05/2012.
Ext. A9 - Bills issued by the 4th respondent to the complainant dtd. 26/06/2012.
Ext. A10 series – Photo with CD of the vehicle of the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext. B1 series – Service History of the complainants vehicle.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 – Subhash.K.V
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1000/- (One Thousand only )allowed as cost of the proceedings.
