Date of filing: 08.07.2022
Date of Disposal: 30.06.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.139/2022
PRESENT:
SRI. SHIVARAMA,K:
SRI. RAJU K.S,
Sri. Sakruti Srinivasa Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
No.39, 6th Cross, Lottegollahalli
RMV II Stage, Sanjaynagar PO,
(In Person)
V/s
M/s. Sathya Constructions
No.52, 3rd Cross, Krishnanagar,
Jalahalli West,
Rep by M. Satish Kumar
(Sri. Muthuraju. A, Advocate)
******
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019 seeking to get the incomplete building revaluated legally and assess the actual cost of the building so that the complainant can go ahead with the incomplete construction and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. Opposite party appeared through the counsel and has filed version beyond the statutory period. Hence, the application seeking permission to file version came to be rejected by the order of this commission dated: 29.05.2023. The said order has not been challenged and the same reached finality. However, the version is kept in the file.
3. It is the case of the complainant that he gave the contract to build a house to him at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per square feet and made an agreement dated: 04.11.2019. Further, the complainant had paid Rs.39,00,000/- at regular interval for the construction to be made. Opposite party had started construction on 04.11.2019 and subsequently had stopped due to covid-19 pandemic. The complainant approached the valuator and got assessed and submitted a report that the maximum cost would be Rs.42,46,213/-. Further, the complainant approached Kodigahalli Police and explained to them and opposite party was called and he claimed Rs.20,00,000/- more money for incomplete construction. Since, the construction was stopped, the present complainant came to be filed.
4. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P8 documents. Counsel for Complainant has filed written arguments.
5. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief
as sought ?
iii) What order?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In negative
Point No.2: In negative
Point No.3: As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1:- PW1 has reiterated the fact stated in the complaint in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief. On perusal of Ex.P1 agreement dated: 21.11.2019 it appears that opposite party had undertook to put up construction. The total cost of the building would be was of Rs.90,00,000/-. Further, the project shall be completed within 12 months from the start of the work and as per payments stage wise. Ex.P2 is the endorsement issued by opposite party for having received the amount in different dates from the complainant. Ex.P3 is the letter dated: 16.05.2020 and 03.03.2020 addressed by the complainant to opposite party with regard to the total payment made. Ex.P4 is the report of the valuator dated: 30.08.2021. In which it is stated that the total cost of construction was of Rs.42,56,213/-. Ex.P5 is the letter of termination of contract dated: 21.03.2022 addressed to the opponent by the complainant. Ex.P6 is the copy of the complaint dated: 30.06.2022 addressed to Kodeghalli Police Station. Ex.P7 is the photo snaps displaying the construction made.
8. The above said oral and documentary evidence has not been challenged by opposite party by producing contrary evidence. The report of the valuer itself indicates that the cost of construction made was Rs.42,56,213/-. Apart from that one Sri. S.V. Manohar, Approved valuer submitted a report dated: 28.07.2020 that the value of the work carried out on the date of inspection was of Rs.57,35,080.00/-. According to the complainant he has paid Rs.39,00,000/-. Even though it is said by the complainant that he was not satisfied with the report he did not attempt to get any other report. Further, the complainant did not make any attempt to get the construction revaluated. Hence, the complainant is not entitle for the relief sought and failed to prove the deficiency of service. Accordingly, we answer the point in negative.
9. Point No. 2:- In view of the finding given on point No. 1, this point is answered in negatively.
10. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
Complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
3. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
(Dictated to the Typist to online computer and typed by him and corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on 30th day of June, 2023)
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined from the side of complainant:
Sri. Sakruti Srinivasa Rao, the complainant (PW-1).
Documents marked from the side complainant:
1. Xerox copy of the agreement dated: 21.11.2019.
2. Hand written money paid receipt.
3. Details of payment slab issued by opposite party.
4. Report of the valuator.
5. Termination of contract letter dated: 21.03.2022.
6. Complaint prepared to lodge before Kodigenahalli Police but Police refused.
7. Eight photo prints.
8. CD containing call conversation with opposite party.
Witness examined from the side of opposite party:
- Nil -
Documents marked from the side of Opposite Party:
- Nil -
-
