Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/211/2018

R.P.Samy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S.Visvarc Consultants & Another - Opp.Party(s)

V.Balaji & A.Sermaraj

10 Nov 2023

ORDER

Complaint presented on  :18.08.2009    Date of disposal            :10.11.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.           : PRESIDENT

                                         TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,         : MEMBER-I

                                         THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.211/2018

 

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 10th  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

 

R.P. Samy

14 Shivapriya

352, T.T.K. Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai-600 018                                                        .. Complainant.                                                                        ..Vs..

 

1.M/s.Visvarc Consultants

2/395, najma avenue 2nd street,

Srinivasapuram,

Thiruvanmiyur

Chennai-600 041

Rep by its proprietor

 

2.Mrs.Vidyaraj

45, Plot No.15, Second Cross Street,

AGS Colony Near Kuppam Main Road,

Kottivakkam

Chennai-600 041                                                             ...  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. V.Balaji

Counsel for   opposite parties 1&2                    : Aparna Nandakumar

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L., PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to directing the Opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.6,47,200/- as per Engineer estimate and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.25,000/- cost of the complaint.

          This complaint filed before DCDRC Chennai South and numbered of CC 774/2009 was transferred to this commission as per the proceedings of the Registrar SCDRC in RC.NoA1/2282/2018 dated 11.09.2018 and renumbered as CC 211/2018

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

         The complainant states that the second opposite party is carrying on construction business in the name and style of M/s.Visvarc consultants. He has entrusted the work of alterations and additions of construction work in residential building at Door No.25, Eldams Road, Alwarpet chennai-600 018. The complainant states that there was no written agreement of construction between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite parties undertake to complete the works on or before November 2007. The 1st opposite party was entrusted to do the work of 1200Sq.ft in ground floor and 1200Sq.ft in first floor and 600+300 totally 900Sq.ft in the second floor. Thus the opposite party was entrusted to do the work of 3300Sq.ft. The complainant states that till 04.04.2008 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,05,000/- to the opposite parties. The complainant states that on several occasions he requested the opposite parties to complete the work since he has fixed the Grahapravasam on March 2008. But December 2007 onwards the opposite parties have not at all done any work. The opposite parties have left the construction without complete the work during May 2008. Hence on 30.05.2008 he has appointed V.Shanmugavel and Associates the Corporate Valuers to give detail estimate of the work done by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have done work to the tune of Rs.8,57,800/- only. Whereas the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.15,05,000/- only. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.6,47,200/- to the complainant. The opposite parties had left the construction work without completing during may 2008 which was subsequently completed by the complainant by engaging another contractor. The complainant states that leaving the construction amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite parties has done work to the tune of Rs.8,57,800/- against the total payment of Rs.15,05,000/- hence in law the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Hence this complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF OPPOSITE PARTIES 1&2 IN BRIEF:

The opposite parties states that due to the mental harassment caused by the complainant and his dilly-dallying attitude the 2nd opposite party has been forced to close down the business ending in huge financial loss not to mention loss of good will in business. The 2nd opposite party took up the construction work on the assumption that the complainant was a good client who would stick to the original agreed plan of work. The complainant had an approaching and reprobating attitude resulting in repeated change of plan in the renovation and alteration work of the complainant’s residential building which was the cause for the delay in the work schedule. The complainant’s only remedy is to file a civil suit and he cannot circumvent the jurisdiction of the civil court in order to save time and to avoid court fees. From the beginning the complainant has not co-operated with the opposite parties and has been changing the original plan and design which resulted in delay in the work inspite of sufficient labour. The 2nd opposite party had obtained the approvals from the Corporation and then only she commenced the work. The 2nd opposite party could not complete the work on because of monetary loss sustained by her and due to the ever changing plans and designs. The 2nd opposite party also explained to the complainant her difficulty, the complainant employed another contractor which amounts to breach of contractual terms. The 2nd opposite party states that she did not leave the work unfinished but she was literally driven out of work by the inconsistent and ephemeral attitude of the complainant. Further, the proper forum to agitate the issue in case of any grievance is to file a civil suit and not to approach this Hon’ble Forum and denied deficiency in service.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed in the complaint. If, so to what extent?

The complainant had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked on his side.The opposite parties had filed proof affidavit, written arguments and documents Ex.B1 to B5.

4. Point No.1:-

The fact that a complainant entrusted the work of alterations and addition of construction work in his residential building Door.No.25 Eldams Road Alwarpet on 10.08.2007 and the work consist of in ground floor and 1st floor totaling to 3300Sq.ft and the further fact the 2nd opposite party is the proprator of the 1st opposite party namely visvarc consultants is not in dispute between the parties. But according to the complainant the opposite party assured to complete the entire work at the cost of Rs.14 lakhs and as mentioned in the para 6 of the complaint upto 04.04.2008 the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.15,05,000/- to the opposite parties on various dates by way of cash and cheques but the opposite party has not completed the work on or before November 2007 as agreed by them and further contended that though the 2nd opposite party has received Rs.20,000/- for obtaining planning permit but the complainant heard from the corporation authority that the work was going on without getting planning permission and further stated that the opposite parties left the construction work without completing during may 2008 and hence on 30.05.2008 he has appointed V.Shanmugavel and associates being valuers to estimate the work done by the opposite party and they have submitted a report stating work done to the tune of Rs.7,36,000/- and subsequently 5 items of work were done by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs.1,21,800/- and therefore contended that the opposite parties have done work for Rs.8,57,800/- only and hence they are liable to refund Rs.6,47,200/- to the complainant and also liable to pay compensation for not completing the work.

But on the other hand the opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the work was promised to be completed by November 2007 under the belief that the complainant will cooperate for  the alteration work but the complainant had been repeatedly changing the plan in the renovation and alteration work which delayed the work schedule and hence the opposite  party had to do and re do the same piece of work due to the changing attitude of the complainant and further alleged that there was no written estimate for the work and payments were received by cheques and cash and further contended that the work was done only after getting approval from the corporation and further alleged that when the 2nd opposite party arrived for work at the work site the work was done by the another contractor employed by the complainant which amounted to breech of contract and she did not leave the work unfinished but she literally driven out of work by the attitude of the complainant and hence the denied deficiency in service and stated due to the act of the complainant the opposite party reputation was spoiled.

The complainant has filed the Ex.A1 which is mail from the 2nd opposite party by listing out the work undertaken at the complainant site dated 02.11.2007 it is found from Ex.A2 a revised work estimate was prepared which was at the instance of complainant.  It is found that there are several changes in the revised estimate which has lead to delay in execution of the work beyond the agreed time it is further found from Ex.A3 that the work has been stopped in the last week of December 2007 and the complainant requested to complete the work by the end of march 2008 It is further found from Ex.A4 that the complainant has listed out the works which have to be completed by the opposite party and under Ex.A5 the opposite party on 13.03.2008 replied stating the expenses so far incurred and assured to complete the work undertaken. It is found from Ex.A6 which has an estimate given by shanmugavel associates being the valuer that the work was done by the opposite party at the site to the tune of Rs.8,57,800/- and under Ex.A7 the complainant as requested to refund the balance amount of Rs.769000/- from the opposite party for which a reply was given by the opposite party under Ex.A8 on 13.04.2009 stating that he had been giving periodical running bills and working accounts to the complainant and the payments were after evaluating the bills and requested to fix mutual time to discuss about the issue and settled the matter. In the proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties it has been stated that as per Ex.B1 to B5 which were vouchers for cheque payment to contractor kannkaraj and cash payment vouchers regarding labour charges and for purchase of materials and cash payment vouchers towards rubbish clearing and towards civil labour work and thus the opposite parties incurred expenditure of Rs.16,08,228/- and therefore the opposite party contended by relying upon Ex.B1 to B5  that the opposite parties had spent Rs.1,03,228/- over and above the amount received from the complainant and further stated that without even informing the opposite party the complainant engaged another contractor to complete the work which defamed the opposite party and also resulted in financial loss and loss of good will to the opposite party.

On perusal of the entire records and averments of the b9oth the parties it is founded that there is no written estimate of work between the parties and there was oral only arrangement between them recording the execution of alteration work and completion ot the work it is further found from revised work estimate which is filed by the complainant that the same was occasioned at the instance of the complainant which will go to show that the complainant has been often changing his mind and altering the renewal work schedule which has occasioned the delaying completion of the work by the opposite party. There is no proof to show the opposite party has intentionally caused delay in executing the work but at the same time the opposite party has not dispute the payment of Rs.15,05,000/- by the complainant on various dates though as per the report of the valuer the work was done by the opposite party only to the tune of Rs.857800/- but Ex.B1 to B5 which were bills and vouchers relating to the complainant work site will go to show that the opposite party has spent Rs.16,08,228/- which is more than the amount received by the complainant and therefore there is no force n the contest of the complainant that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by leaving the work incomplete. But on the other hand it is found that the opposite party was ready to fulfill the remaining work but due to engaging of a new contractor by the complainant without informing the same the opposite parties was not allowed to complete the work which is due to the fault of the complainant and therefore it is founded the complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.6,47,200/- from the opposite party and also for compensation as claimed in the complaint. The complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:

          Based on the findings given to the PointNo.1,since there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled for refund of Rs.6,47,200/- from the opposite parties and also not entitled for compensation as claimed in the complaint. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

 

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No Cost

Dictated  by President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10th November 2023

 

MEMBER I                                  MEMBER – II                           PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1

02.11.2007

Opposite party E-mail

Ex.A2

22.11.2007

Revised work estimate

Ex.A3

05.02.2008

Complainant letter

Ex.A4

03.03.2008

Complainant letter

Ex.A5

13.03.2008

Opposite party letter

Ex.A6

05.06.2008

Estimate given by Shanmugavel&Associates

Ex.A7

11.12.2008

Complainant letter

Ex.A8

13.04.2009

Opposite party reply

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1

 

Cheque payment vouchers of Kanakaraj

Ex.B2

 

Miscellaneous expenses of Kanakaraj

Ex.B3

 

Vouchers on purchase of materials

Ex.B4

 

Rubbish clearing account

Ex.B5

 

Vouchers of Civil Contractors

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                         MEMBER – II                       PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.