IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of May, 2017.
Filed 21/11/2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) in
C.C.No.343/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Smt. Padmaja, Sri. Rajendran
W/o Radhakrishnan, S/o Narayanan
Pran Nivas, Padmalayam, Komothuparambil
Pathiyoor Padinjarumooriyil Vaathikkulam Muriyil
Pathiyoor village, Olakettiyambalam PO
Karthikappally Taluk Thekkekara village,
Alappuzha. Mavelikkara Taluk,
Alappuzha.
(By Adv.R.Gopalakrishnia Pilla) (By Adv. G.Madhu)
O R D E R
SMT ELIZABETH GEORGE ( PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for the construction of 743 sq.ft at the rate of Rs.1150/- per sq.ft towards extending the shop room and the opposite party received the full amount after finishing the work. There after opposite party agreed to construct 1st floor on the rate fixed for the earlier construction by the opposite party. Opposite party started the construction on 7/4/14. Complainant paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the opposite party. But the opposite party committed delay in finishing the work. Moreover he demanded additional amount for completing the work. Complainant is residing in a rented house since the opposite party failed to hand over the house and that caused much inconveniences and mental agony. Hence there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount received along with compensation.
2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:
Opposite party never agreed to construct the building on the rate fixed for the construction of the ground floor. The opposite party had already constructed 1273.1 sq.ft and he had to complete the remaining work which worth only Rs.1,50,000/-. Opposite party had to get Rs. 6,64,100/- from the complainant. There was no agreement for the construction of the building as stated by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents were produced as marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 and A2 marked subject to objection. In the instance of the complainant the expert commissioner was appointed. The commission report produced is marked as Ext.C1 series. The commissioner was examined as CW1. Opposite party was examined as RW1. One witness was examined as RW2.
4. Points for considerations are:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. According to the complainant he entered into an agreement with the opposite party for doing the extension work of his shop. As per the agreement the opposite party completed the construction and received the full amount. The said agreement produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1. There after complainant appointed opposite party to construct the 1st floor at the rate fixed for the earlier construction. Opposite party started the work but he committed delay in finishing the construction. According to the complainant even though he paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the opposite party he has not finished the construction. But the opposite party filed version stating that he had never agreed to construct the work on the rate fixed for the construction of shop. He further stated he had constructed 1273 sq.ft and he has to get Rs.6,64,100/- more from the complainant. It is pertinent to see that there was no written agreement executed between the parties regarding the construction. During the cross examination opposite party admitted that he had received Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant. According to the complainant having accepted huge amount from him, the opposite party has committed delay in finishing the work and opposite party is also demanding more amount from him. While cross examining the opposite party he stated that he had constructed 1273 sq.ft at the rate of Rs.1700/- per sq.ft. In order to substantiate this claim no evidence adduced by the opposite party. At the instance of the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed to assess the quantum of work done by the opposite party. The report marked as Ext.C1. Expert deposed before the Forum that he relayed the rate as per DAR 2014 (Data Analysis Rate fixed by the Central Govt.) He produced it also before the Forum. As per Ext.C1 the total cost of work comes to Rs.11,25,293/- and the cost of balance work to be executed for the completion of the work comes to Rs.7,30,184/-. So as per the commission report the complainant paid an excess amount of Rs.3,74,707/- to the opposite party. During the cross examination of the opposite party he admitted before the Forum he had filed complaints against the complainant before Kurathikkadu Police Station and Kareelakulanga Police Station. But he had not produced the decision taken in his complaint before the Kurathikkadu and Kareelakulangara Police Station. At the same time complainant produced the plan and estimate regarding the construction done by the opposite party which was prepared by the opposite party and produced before the Kurathikkadu Police Station and it marked as Ext.A3. As per Ext. A3 the opposite party has to pay Rs.84,156/- to the complainant. He also produced the plan and estimate regarding the finished work and the remaining work which prepared by the Engineer as per the direction of the Kareelakulangara Police Station and it marked as Ext.A4. As per Ext.A4 the opposite party has to pay Rs.2,18,000/- to the complainant. During the proceedings pending before the Forum the complainant filed petition for allowing her to complete the construction. Since the expert commissioner is asked to assess to the then condition of the building the petition is allowed. But complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the amount spent for completing the construction.
From the above discussion it is clear that opposite party has not completed the construction work of the complainant. There was no agreement executed between the parties regarding the construction. As per the Commission Report opposite party executed work worth only for Rs. 11,25,293/-. It is an admitted fact that opposite party has received Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant. After having accepted the huge amount from the complainant opposite party neither completed the construction nor constructed the building for the amounts received by him and that amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.3,74,707/-(Rupees Three lakh Seventy Four thousand Seven hundred and Seven) being the excess amount that he received from the complainant with 8% interest from the date of complaint till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three thousand)towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. Since the primary relief is allowed the further relief for compensation is not allowed.
The Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2017.
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George, President
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member
Appendix:
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Padmaja Radhakrishnan(Witness)
PW2 - Gopalakrishnan(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Agreement
Ext.A2 - Receipt
Ext.A3 - Copy of plan and detailed estimate
Ext.A4 - Copy of plan and detailed estimate for constructed area &
balance work area of a residential building
Evidence of Opposite party:-
RW1 - Rajendran(Witness)
RW2 - Vishnu Mohan(Witness)
Court Ext.
CW1 - G. Gopinathan(Expert Commissioner)
C1 - Commission Report
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F
