State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C. Sridevi vs J.J. Green Energy India Pvt Ltd., ... on 22 August, 2023
1
Date of filing : 12.3.2014
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: Hon'ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT
C.C. No. 51 of 2014
Tuesday, the 22nd day of August 2023
Dr.C.Sridevi,
D/o Late G.Sadagopan,
Old No.6, New No.15,
Cenetoph 1st Street,
Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018. .. Complainant
- Vs -
1. M/s. J.J.Green Energy India Pvt. Ltd., and
Building Comfort Systems Chennai Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by its Managing Director,
Mrs.Amala Valentine.
2. Mrs.Amala Valentine,
W/o Antony Varghese Vijay,
Director: J.J.Green Energy India Pvt. Ltd.,
and Building Comfort Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Having Regional Office,
No.14/27, Arokia Madha Nagar,
Little Mount, Saidapet,
Chennai - 600 015. .. Opposite Parties
For the Complainant : M/s. Muniruddin Sheriff
For the Opposite Parties : M/s. R.N.Amarnath
2
This Complaint came up for final hearing today, on 22.08.2023, and on
hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This Complaint has been filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the Opposite Parties for the following reliefs:-
(a) Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/-
towards unfinished work;
(b) Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
towards loss incurred.
(c) Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
towards mental agony, hardship and loss suffered by the complainant and
(d) To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-as legal expenses.
2. The case of the complainant is that she is the owner of the property at No.55, GST Road, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpat Taluk. She wanted to demolish the existing building and put up a commercial building. The opposite parties had approached the complainant and represented that they are genuine builders. Believing their words, the complainant by an 3 agreement dated 09.06.2011 entrusted the work to the opposite parties for constructing a commercial building with a plinth area of 10,400 sq. ft. in the Ground, First and Second Floor inclusive of electrical and plumbing work etc. The opposite parties had also agreed to construct the commercial building as per the specification mentioned in the said agreement for a total cost of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. In addition it was also quoted by the opposite parties that providing installation of generator, lift, control air conditioning electrical work electricity connection and interior work totalling to Rs.59,06,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay Rs.32,00,000/- for the additional work. The cost of construction was payable depending upon the progress of the work. The opposite parties started construction work and the complainant made payments on various dates from 25.05.2011 to 31.12.2012. As on 05.02.2013 the complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.1,70,26,900/- as against the agreement amount of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. In spite of receipt of over and above the agreed amount by the opposite parties, construction work was very slow and the opposite parties left the work in the mid way unfinished. The complainant had to make payment as and when the opposite parties demanded. The complainant had no other option except to pay monies as demanded by the opposite parties. The opposite parties never adhered to the terms of the agreement. The complainant made payment with fond hope that the opposite parties would complete the construction. But in spite of several oral demands and requests the opposite 4 parties had failed and neglected to complete the construction work as per the terms and specifications. The opposite parties had completed only 60% of the work entrusted and had left 40% of the work as unfinished work. The value of left out unfinished work works out to Rs.42,00,000/-. The opposite parties had received the total amount of Rs.1,70,26,900/- which is evident from the receipt of acknowledgment given by them. The value of the unfinished work works out to Rs.1,23,29,400/-. The opposite parties had taken excess amount of Rs.46,97,460/-. The opposite parties had not done the works namely: compound wall, flooring, ceiling, painting, fixing of gate, electrical wiring and fittings in the Ground floor, First Floor, painting and false ceiling work, Second Floor painting and false ceiling work, Air condition, generator and elevator. Further the opposite party did not supply and install Air Conditioners, Generator and Elevator. The complainant had to incur an additional cost of Rs.42,70,000/- from January to August 2013. Since there was a delay in completion of the work by the opposite parties the complainant has lost 6 months rent from September 2012 to August 2013 amounting to Rs.16,38,000/-. Paid a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as interest to the Bank and paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the tenant to whom the complainant agreed to hand over the possession. The complainant finally left with no other alternative filed complaint to the Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station against both the opposite parties and a case was registered in Crime No.34 of 2013. The opposite parties were arrested 5 and remanded to judicial custody on 26.01.2014 and thereafter, both of them had come out on bail. The criminal case is pending against them for the offence of cheating and extortion. The opposite parties had not only received an excess amount over and above the agreed amount but also in reckless manner left the work half way unfinished. The complainant had to miserably depend upon another contractor for completing the construction and was thereby put to mental agony and hardship. The opposite parties had committed breach of contract and deficiency in service by evading oral and written request and demands. Even though the complainant had incurred loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,000/- she has taken separate steps in the Civil Forum for recovery of the excess amount paid to the opposite parties for construction. The complainant is now seeking only the relief to recover the amount incurred for the completion of the construction from the opposite parties and restrict her claim to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-towards unfinished work and Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss incurred and Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.20,000/- as legal expenses.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by way of filing reply by totally denying all the allegations in the complaint. It is the specific stand of the first opposite party that the complainant approached the first opposite party viz., M/s. JJ Green Energy India Pvt. Ltd., for developing of her property at No.55 GST Road, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengleput District after demolishing the then existing superstructure and to 6 put up a new commercial complex. On 09.06.2011 the complainant entered into an agreement to the effect. M/s. Building Comforts Systems Chennai Private Limited has nothing to do with the contract and the execution of the work, except certain payments were made by the complainant through M/s. Building Comforts Pvt. Ltd., to the Account of M/s.J.J.Green Energy. The Building Comforts Systems is dealing only in equipments used for furnishing the houses and business places. As per the said agreement total area to be constructed and the cost of construction is as follows:
i) Ground floor approximately 4000 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.700 per sq. ft. ... Rs.28,00,000
ii) First Floor approximately 3200 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.1300/- per sq. ft. ... Rs. 41,00,000
iii) Second Floor approximately 3200 sq. ft.
at the rate of Rs.1300/- per sq. ft. ... Rs.41,00,000 The complainant agreed to pay 30% of cost at the time of signing the contract, 30% after completion of structure of the building, 30% at the time of starting of the interior work and final 10% at the time of completion of the project. The complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards cost for the demolition of existing structure separately. The demolition cost is exclusive of the total construction cost. While the work was in progress, the complainant visited and inspected the construction work and after being satisfied with the work done by the first opposite party the complainant used to make payments. Initially made payment to the first opposite party's account and thereafter through the account of M/s. Building Comfort 7 Systems. While the construction work was in progress the complainant demanded the first opposite party to increase the area to be constructed in the ground floor and in the second floor and to reduce the area in the first floor. It was also agreed that the third floor additional construction shall be at the rate of Rs.1300/- per sq.ft. Thereafter the revised rate was mutually agreed by the opposite party and the complainant by negotiation. The first opposite party put up construction as agreed upon. The complainant further demanded to put up additional construction work and supply and installation of machineries viz., (i) Generator (ii) Lift (iii) Air-conditioner (iv) Relocation of water tank. By e-mail dated 4.7.2012 the first opposite party through the second opposite party's email quoted the rate for the additional construction work with cost of machineries. The complainant paid only a sum of Rs.1,59,00,000/-. After negotiation the complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards additional cost for the relocation of water tank. But the complainant failed to pay the said amount as agreed, though the entire work was executed as agreed upon. The total construction work as on site executed by the first opposite party works out to Rs.1,72,12,600/-. Whereas, the total amount received from the complainant is Rs.1,59,00,000/-. Balance amount to be paid by the complainant to the first opposite party is Rs.13,12,600/-. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
8
4. The second opposite party filed a reply stating that there is no privity of contract between the 2nd opposite party and the complainant. Even M/s. Building Comforts Systems Chennai Pvt. Ltd., is not having any privity of contract with the complainant except certain correspondence made by this opposite party's husband who is the Managing Director of both the companies from the email of M/s. Building Comforts Systems Pvt. Ltd. And certain payments were made by the complainant through M/s. Building Comforts Chennai Pvt. Ltd., to J.J.Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case and claim, along with proof affidavit, 16 documents were filed on the side of the Complainant and they were marked as Exs.A1 to A16. Along with proof affidavit, 22 documents were filed on the side of the opposite parties and they were marked as Ex.B1 to B22.
6. Heard the submission of the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties and also perused the materials placed on record.
7. The main allegation of the counsel for the complainant is that the opposite parties having received an excess amount over and above the agreed amount had left the work half way unfinished and that the complainant had to miserably depend upon another contractor for completing the construction and hence he suffered mental agony and hardship. Hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite 9 parties. But the said allegation of the complainant was stoutly denied by the opposite parties stating that the total construction work as on site executed by the first opposite party works out to Rs.1,72,12,600/-, whereas, the total amount received from the complainant is only Rs.1,59,00,000/- and the balance amount to be paid by the complainant to the first opposite party is Rs.13,12,600/-. When the opposite party denies the allegation of the complaint, this Commission cannot decide the issue by merely accepting the case of the complainant. In such circumstances the complainant ought to have filed application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and file a report before this Commission with regard to the defects found in the construction. But the complainant has not chosen to take any application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the past 9 years. Without getting opinion of an expert the issue involved in this case cannot be decided. Therefore, on the sole ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Complaint as against the opposite parties is dismissed. No costs.
R.SUBBIAH PRESIDENT 10 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT Sl.No. Date Description of Documents Ex.A.1. 09.06.2011 Agreement Ex.A.2. 14.05.2011 Letter from opposite parties Quotation Ex.A.3. 13.07.2011 Letter from opposite parties Ex.A.4. 05.02.2013 Receipt given by the opposite parties Ex.A.5. 05.02.2013 E.Mail by the complainant Ex.A.6. 27.02.2013 Copy of Police Complaint Ex.A.7. 02.12.2013 Order passed in Crl.O.P.No.28160/2013 Ex.A.8. 11.01.2014 Copy of Complaint Ex.A.9. 11.01.2014 FIR copy in Crime No.34/2013 Ex.A.10. 01.02.2014 Bail order in Crl.O.P.No.250/2014 Ex.A.11. 04.02.2014 Order in Crl.O.P.No.2002/2014 Ex.A.12. - Estimate of Construction Ex.A.13. 20.05.2011 To 31.12.2012 Statement of Account for the payment made Ex.A.14. 20.05.2011 To 31.12.2012 Bank Statement Copy.
Ex.A.15. 2013 Various Statement of Expenditures, Bills and vouchers.
Ex.A.16. - Statement of Accounts.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES Sl. No. Date Description of Documents Ex.B.1 -- Company Registration Certificate Ex.B.2 9.6.2011 Construction agreement Ex.B.3 4.7.2012 Revised construction agreement with quotation Ex.B.4 5.7.2012 Acceptance email 11 Ex.B.5 5.7.2012 Confirmation mail Ex.B.6 13.7.2012 2nd revised agreement Ex.B.7 12.2.2013 Work reminder email Ex.B.8 -- Reply given by first opposite party Ex.B.9 -- Statement of account Ex.B.10 -- Statement of account Ex.B.11 12.2.2013 Invoice issued to Building Comfort and systems by Dhanya Enterises Ex.B.12 9.7.2011 Invoice raised in the name of the complainant by ABS Drilling and company.
Ex.B.13 9.7.2011 Invoice raised in the name of Antony Varghese Vijay by ABS Drilling and Company.
Ex.B.14 15.2.2013 Invoice raised by ACS Power Pvt. Ltd. In the name of Building Comfort Systems.
Ex.B.15 11.3.2013 Legal notice.
Ex.B.16 19.3.2013 Acknowledgement Card Ex.B.17 29.11.2013 Legal notice Ex.B.18 19.12.2013 Reply notice Ex.B.19 April 2014 Plaint in O.S.No.4467 of 2014 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.
Ex.B.20 9.4.2014 Petition in C.S.No.562 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court.
Ex.B.21 15.12.2014 Petition in Crl.O.P.No.33198 of 2014 before the Hon'ble High Court.
Ex.B.22 11.1.2014 FIR in Crime No.34 of 2014 pending on the file of Inspector of Police, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station.
R.SUBBIAH, J.
PRESIDENT.
Index : Yes/ No GR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/August/2023