State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Smt.Kamal Preet Kaur vs R.S. Constructions, on 5 May, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.58 OF 2016
Between:
1. Smt. Kamal Preet
Kaur,
W/o. Gurpreet Singh,
Aged about 47 years years,
Occ: G.S. Agricultural Works,
Plot No.224,
Jyothi's Green Ways,
Dharmaram Village,
Hyderabad Road,
NIZAMABAD
2. Gurpreet Singh,
S/o. Ajit Singh,
Aged about 48 years,
Occ: G.S. Agricultural Works,
Plot No.224,
Jyothi's Green Ways,
Dharmaram Village,
Hyderabad Road,
NIZAMABAD. ...Complainants
And
R.S. Constructions,
Rep. by Contractor,
Mr. Shankar Bhanuka,
S/o. Late Gangaram,
H.No.3-90/2/A,
Jankampet Village,
Yedpally Mandal,
NIZAMABAD District ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant M/s. Gopi Rajesh &Associates
Counsel for the Opposite Parties
M/s. Suri Sravan Kumar
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER- (J)
&s
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER -
(NJ) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWOo ****** (Per Hon'ble Smt. R. Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Party:
1. To refund the incurred by the excess expenditure complainants for painting, repairs and for constructing terrace room and watchman amount rooms etc., to Rs.11,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of actual payment i.e., 11.09.2013 till the date of realization.
2. To refund the excess amount of Rs.23,00,000/- paid by the complainants to the opposite parties from time to time along with interest 18% p.a., to the complainants which have been paid by the complainants by way of rent from September, 2013 to January, 2016 @ 30,000/-
per month due to not having been given possession of the impugned house and
3. To pay Rs.20,00,000/- to the complainants towards mental agony and loss suffered by the complainants due to act of the opposite party herein and to award to cost of Rs.40,000/-.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that, the complainants with a view to construct a house in premises were in lookout for a builder then they came across the Opposite Party who had given vast advertisement through pamphlets and newspapers for construction of house. Being attracted by the same the complainants approached the Opposite Party for construction of duplex house at Jyothi Green Ways, Goopanpally, Nizamabad District. The Opposite Party after explaining the terms and conditions and after thorough discussions within both the parties.
Both of them entered into an Agreement dated 10.01.2013 of construction with certain specifications on payment mode and the t n of vonatetion wan lixed at a.1,00),000/ (upeen Pifny ne akia only) a l the oumplainanta have paid the ntrution A 4N e r tlie ngroel dates as and when tie onstrtion Was Pgenning t aibarquently the 0ppmaite Varty haul demnded 4n adtitomnal Wa 12,00,000/ ver a l abwwe the agreel amont and inally the 1OPOve e Omplanant paiel th ne 0mplainants ended up paying ka 03,00,000/ to the Opposile P'arty al the Oppoaite Party al omised to complete the onattm within a periond of months of Agreement But, hacd lailed to 00nplotr he conatrtio1 cven after the expiry to 2 ycars Ad alo the conatrton ndertaken by Opposite 'arty wss por quality and the material ucd was also of very poor quality which didu't mateh the apeoification as ngrerd and that the COnatruution matle wan witlhoring away despite being a fresh onatrtin The Opponite Party had been chunging the NUpervinor anl on numeroun oceaniona thin fact was brougit to the notior of the Oppoaite 1Party duc to which there were muny lawn in the conatrution. But, the Opponite Party failed to rectily the name und the Oppoaite Party nade it clcar that, the complaiantn would have to bear thcir expenscu for components of better quality uperior specifications duc to which the complainanta had to incur additional expenditure for Paint, Stone, Marble, cntire wiring and Switches, the door hardware, Sanitary itema and tiles and even in the Bath Room flooring the Opposite Party failed to une water prool liquid duc to which the wuter in thc bath roomN remaincd stagnant and the construction in two bath oom wAN 0 pathetie that the complainant hud to rc-construct the Nane incurring cxpenditure an«d the wood used for doors and A Windows also started developing cracks and the Carpenter who was appointed by the Opposite Party was very irregular and had not fixed the doors until April, 2015 the same was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party but failed to take any steps. Further that the complainants have paid an extra amount of Rs.12,00,000/ towards construction of the room in terrace along with wash room and also construction of watchman room in the ground loor but the Opposite Party failed to complete the said works and discontinue the work without any intimation or notice to the complainants and the Opposite Party construction the rooms with inferior quality and of un even size. As such the complainants ware compelled to demolish and hand over the said work other builders for completion of the work and there by the complainant had incurred an expenditure of the Rs.11,00,000/-in this way Opposite Party had collected excess amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and incurred expenditure of Rs.11,00,000/- i.e., a total of Rs.23,00,000/- was incurred as extra amount.
3. Further inview of the failure on the part of the Opposite Party to complete the construction within the stipulated time they were forced to stay in rented house by paying a monthly Rs.7,200/- per month. 'As such, they are the said claiming rental amount with interest @ 10% p.a., from 11.09.2013. Due to all these above deficiencies by the Opposite Party such as delay in construction, poor quality construction and incomplete construction the complainant had not only incurred monetary loss but also had under gone mental agony and approached Hon'ble National Commission at New Delhi but had withdrawn the same with a permission to file the same before this Commission. As Such the present complaint is filed for the above grievances Seeking refund of excess amount and compensation for mental agony.
. The Opposite party was set exparte on 22.12.2016. The Opposite Party preferred an appeal against the complainant before the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vide F.A.No.738/2019 and the same was dismissed on 31.01.2020 but however, the Opposite Party continued to contest the matter by filing his evidence affidavit but no documents are marked on his behalf.
5 The points that arises for consideration are,
1. Whether the complainant has made out a case of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party? 2 Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?
3. To what extent ?
6 Point Nos.1 & 2:- The grievance of the complainant in a nutshell are as under:
(1). Delay in construction and incomplete constructi (2) Poor quality of material used by opposite party in construction.
(3) Due to which the complainant had to engage other builder to complete the remaining construction and incurred expenditure of Rs.11,00,000/-, (4) Excess amount collected by the opposite party as against the 51 Lakhs as agreed in the construction agreement.6
to Rs.8,70,000/- @
5) Had to pay rents amounting
to January,
30,000/- p.m., from September 2013
2016 and
(6). Suffered mental agony, hardship and inconveniene
7. In support of their case complainant filed Ex.A1 to A 17. The whole case of the complainant is based on Ex.A1 construction Agreement. And on perusal of Ex.A1, it is a simple construction agreement with only certain specifications of construction and the total cost of construction but the said agreement does not stipulate any time frame for completion of the construction work. In the absence of any stipulated time, the contention of the complainant that there is a delay in construction cannot be considered as there was no such agreement entitled into by the parties.
8. Further, the complainants have contended that they have incurred an expenditure of Rs.11,00,000/- to complete the pending works and also to rectify the defective work done by the Opposite Party but the said statements are not supported by any evidence as such the same cannot be considered.
9. Similarly the complainant had pleaded that he had incurred rental expenditure to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/- but no such proofs are placed before this Commission.
10. As regards the excess amount collected by the opposite party EX.A2 to A16 are the receipts which reveal that the complainant had paid Rs.63,00,000/- as against Rs.51 Lakhs as agreed in the agreement. But, at para No.15 of the evidence affidavit the Pw1/ Complainant No.2 himself has deposed that an extra KS.12,00,000/- was paid for construction of the room on terrace along with wash room and a room for watchman on ground iloor In such case it cannot be contended that the opposite party had collected extra amount, the said Rs.12 Lakhs is paid for the extra work entrusted.
11. Mere statements will not suffice the complainant had to substantiate his pleadings with sufficient documentary evidence.
In the absence of the same the contentions of the complainant cannot be considered and the points are answered accordingly.
12. As far as compensation is concerned, in the above discussion though we have concluded that due to lack of evidence the complainant had failed to prove as to how much expenses he had incurred and ho much rent he had paid and this Commission is not an expert to assess such damage. But however the deficient work done by the opposite party is clearly visible in Ex.A17 photographs and the same cannot be overlooked and there is no rebuttal evidence to the same. Such deficient work might have certainly caused severe inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainants in rectifying the same.
As such we are of the view that the complainant be suitably compensated.
13. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party:
G). To pay a compensation oRs.1,00,000/- for causing inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to complainants by his deficient services.
(i) To pay Rs.20,000/- towards costs of litigation.8
for is 30 days from the date of receipt of Time compliance this order.