DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of Filing: 18/08/2015
CC/113/2015
K. Ramachandran
S/o C. Krishnan,
Paakkanji Veedu, Tholannur
Palakkad.
(By Adv. N. Rajesh) - Complainant
Vs
V.Suresh,
S/o Velayudhan,
N.P. House, Melarkode,
Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv. V. Shanmukhanandan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
1. An assumption of the complainant that the residential building he has constructed wouldn’t cost as much as claimed by the contractor led to the fruition of this dispute.
2. Complaint averment is that the complainant paid Rs. 36,57,199/- to the opposite party in accordance with an agreement dated 15.11.2012 for construction of a residential building, which in the opinion of an engineer consulted by the complainant, would cost only Rs. 26,95,220/-. The complainant is aggrieved by the said difference and has filed this complaint seeking for the difference amount of Rs. 9,55,979/-.
3. The opposite party contested complaint allegations and claim. The version pleadings included contentions that there was no agreement as between the complainant and opposite party, that the opposite party had not affixed any signature in any documents, that the opposite party had never made the complainant believe that the opposite party is a licensed contractor and that he had not received Rs.36,57,199/- from the complainant, that he had completed construction based on the materials handed over to him by the complainant and that amounts are due from the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party is not bound to pay Rs.9,55,959/- to the complainant. The additional amounts occurred as the complainant made variation by increasing the area of the building to be constructed and certain other incidental corollary constructions. The opposite party has also a case that the amount sought for by the complainant is a part of the usurious interest for amount availed by the opposite party from the complainant on loan. The Police of Kottayi Police station has warned the complainant for foisting false complaints against the opposite party. The opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On reading of the averments in the complaint and version the following issues arise for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has proved that the construction cost of the building is Rs. 26,95,220/-?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
3. Reliefs, if any?
5. Evidence comprised of Exhibit A1(series) on the part of the complainant. The opposite party has adduced no evidence. Commission report was marked as Exhibit C1.
6. Inorder to prove that the signature was not his, the opposite party sought to have his signature verified in the Forensic Science Laboratory. But due to the manner in which the procedure was handled, for over 3 years, that effort was laid to rest without any result.
Issue No.1:
7. The complaint averred that he had entered into an agreement dated 15.11.2012 with the opposite party for construction of a residential building. As per the complainant, he paid the opposite party Rs. 36,57,199/-. When he had the cost assessed with the help of an engineer, it was found that the entire expense would come to only Rs. 26,95,220/-. The complainant alleged that the opposite party has mulcted Rs.9,65,979/- from out of his pocket.
8. In-order to substantiate the case, an expert commission inspected the building. His report was marked as Exhibit C1. Eventhough the complainant had filed objections to Exhibit C1 report, no steps were taken by him to cross examine the expert and prove the veracity of his objections. Even the written objection is bland vis-a vis the crisp and detailed nature of Exhibit C1 report. Hence this Commission can safely rely on Exhibit C1 report.
9. Exhibit C1 report of the visit of the commissioner to the residence of the complainant made on 01.06.2016 fixed the construction cost of the building at Rs.39,94,000/-. Construction of the building was over on 2014. From a reading of the expense arrived at by the commissioner, we believe that the probable cost of construction as on 2014 would more likely be Rs.36,57,199/- giving space for cost escalation rather than Rs.26,95,220/-.
10. The complainant has not even bothered to examine the engineer who had arrived at a cost of Rs.26,95,220/ to substantiate his case. Further more, the complainant has admitted in his cross examination that eventhough the original plan was to construct a house of 1900/- sq.ft, subsequently the area was extended to 2596sq.ft. (from line 21 in page 4 to line 3 of page 5 of the deposition of PW1).
11. In view of the discussions above in foregoing paragraphs, it is only apposite to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case that the construction cost of the building is Rs.26,95,220/-.
Issue Nos.2 & 3:
12. In view of the finding in issue no. 1, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and unrivalled contentions in the version pleadings, contents of Exhibit C1 report, it is only fair in the interest of justice that a cost of Rs.15,000/- be imposed on the complainant, payable to the opposite party.
14. In the result,
1. The complaint stands dismissed.
2. The complainant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as cost to the opposite party.
This order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of December, 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 (series) – Original of the agreement dated 15.11.2012 along with cash receipts behind 5 back sheets of the agreement
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Court Exhibits
C1 – Commission report with one photograph
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – K. Ramachandran
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party
DW1 – Suresh V.
Cost : Rs. 15,000/- allowed.
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the
proceedings in accordance with Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
Procedure) Regulations, 2020.
