DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 18/02/2021
CC/32/2021
Gopalakrishnan,
S/o. Late Kesavan Nair,
Muthiyil Veedu,
Kallekulangara PO,
Palakkad – 678 009 - Complainant
(By Adv. Shunmugheshwari)
Vs
Vinod K.G.
S/o.Gopinatha Panickar,
Puthiyakalam Veedu,
Sasthanagar,
Akathethara PO,
Palakkad – 678 008 - Opposite party
(O.P. by Adv. M. Abdul Khaleel)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Briefly stated, complaint pleadings reveal that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of a 300 sqft “Steel Structure House” on top of an existing building. The entire terms and conditions were reduced to writing. Contrary to the terms and conditions, the opposite party had completed works only to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- eventhough the complainant had handed over Rs. 3,25,000/- to the opposite party. As the opposite party failed to complete the construction work, the complainant is forced to reside in a rented house. As efforts at settlement of dispute did not bear fruit, this complaint is filed.
- Opposite party countered complaint pleadings alleging that he had carried out works efficiently. It was only due to the non-payment of money by the complainant that the works were not completed. The O.P. has already incurred an expense of Rs. 3,45,000/- upto 15.01.2021, by way of labour and material costs. The opposite party stopped works as the complainant failed to pay Rs. 1,25,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- Pleadings and counter pleadings give rise to the following Issues:
I. Whether there existed a reciprocal promise regarding payment to be effected and work to be executed?
II. Whether the parties complied with their part of the agreement?
III. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
IV. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?
V. Any other Reliefs?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A14. Marking of
documents were not objected to by the opposite party.
(ii) Opposite party did not adduce any evidence inspite of granting time.
Issue No.I
5. Ext. A12 is the agreement entered into between the parties to the disputed. Ext. A12 is marked without any objection. Pleadings of the opposite party also does not refute the contentions regarding the existence of Ext. A12. Hence we hold that there existed binding reciprocal promises between the parties.
Issue No.II
6. Per complaint pleadings, the opposite party was to carry out the works of the structure in terms of Ext. A12 Work agreement. Pleadings of the O.P. does not reveal whether he had received Rs. 3,25,000/- or not. But as opposite party did not rise any objection to marking Exts. A13 and A14 in evidence, we can only presume that the said amounts were received by the opposite party.
7. The dispute, therefore, would precipitate to working out the cost of works completed by the opposite party. Burden of proof would be on the complainant to prove that the works carried out would cost only Rs. 1,00,000/- as pleaded by him.
8. What the complainant attempts to prove with Exts. A1 to A5 and A7 to A11 invoices is not clear. They are invoices issued either to unnamed parties or to persons who are strangers to this complaint. Ext. A6 is a set of 9 photographs which would not prove the valuation of the structure.
9. The complainant had failed to prove the valuation of the structure by adducing cogent evidence like an expert commissioner’s report. Having failed to do so, the complaint pleadings stand unproved.
10. Resultantly, the complainant has failed to prove his case that the opposite party had carried out work of the structure only to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- .
Issue No. III to V
11. Consequent to the findings in Issue No. 1, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Complaint is dismissed.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Original invoice bearing No.C2267 dated 11/8/21
Ext.A2 - Original invoice bearing No.M4129/21-22 dated 11/8/21 (Page 1)
Ext.A3 - Original invoice bearing No.M4129/21-22 dated 11/8/21 (Page 2)
Ext.A4 – Original invoice bearing No.C2299 dated 12/8/21
Ext.A5 – Original invoice bearing No.M4214/21-22 dated 13/8/21
Ext.A6 series – 9 photographs
Ext.A7 – Copy of estimate dated 24/5/2022
Ext.A8 – Original invoice bearing No.MT2458/22-23 dated 24/5/22
Ext.A9 – Original invoice bearing No.MT2503/22-23 dated 25/5/22
Ext.A10 – Original invoice bearing No.MT2595/22-23 dated 26/5/22
Ext.A11 – Original invoice bearing No.MT2622/22-23 dated 27/5/22
Ext.A12– Photocopy of agreement dated 18/11/2020
Ext.A13 – Photocopy of passbook from Canara Bank
Ext.A14 – Photocopy of passbook from Akathethara Service Co-Op. Bank
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
