State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ahmed Mohiuddin Ansari, vs 1.Muqhtar Ahmed Khan, on 27 January, 2023
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:: HYDERABAD.
Cc.NO.109 OF 2018
Between:
Ahmed Mohiuddin Ansari,
S/o. Late Mohd. Ammeruddin,
Aged about: 56 years, Occ: Advocate,
R/o. H.No. 17-3-194/54,
Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. .Complainant
And
1. Mughtar Ahmed Khan,
S/o. Md.Ziaullah Khan,
Aged about: 30 years,
Occ: Civil Engineer,
2. Mairaj Ahmed Khan,
S/o. Md. Ziaullah Khan,
Aged about: 28 years,
Occ: Civil Contractor,
3. Mansoor Ahmed Khan,
S/o. Md.Ziaullah Khan,
Aged about 25 years,
Occ: Civil Contractor,
All are R/o. H.No.16-9-759,
Old Malakpet,
Hyderabad. .Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant M/s. Gulam Mustafa Rabbani
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :SriAdesh Varmaa
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.v.SESHUBABU, MEMBER -
(J) HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RA0 -MEMBER (J) HON BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NJ) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ****** (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order (01). This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
i. To declare the acts of the Opposite parties in not completingg the construction work in time as deficiency of service.
. A mpeNatdm and damasS af Rs.20,50.000/ to b grantad to the Complainant divting the OpNNte Partyto y the said amrunt jointty and severaly to the Complainant under the following heads House Nent of Rs. 1,50,000/ Compensatim and damaes towands deticieney of service Rs.10,00.0D-.
Compenatin and damags towands mental agony, harassment and loss -Rs.
15,00,000/-
d Cost of this complaint may be awaniad.
(02).The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The case of the complainant is he being absolute owner of H.No.17-3-194/55/B. Madinanagar, B-Block.
Yakutpura Hyderabad and as the structurr was a old building and in dilapidated condition and he was intending to dismantde the same and construct a new building, Opposite Party No.1 who is an engineer and father of childhood friend of the had made a complainants son proposal to make the consruction of the building and ater finalizing the talks it was agrred that the Opposite Party No.1 along with Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have agreed to construct a house i.e., ground floor and 1s floor for a total consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- and with a promise to complete the construction within 4 months i.e., from April 2017 to September -2017 and the complainant believing the same had paid an amount of Rs.23,50,000/-, but the opposite parties failed to complete the construction as promise within a period of 4 months and in the month of September-2017 the opposite parties demanded a further sum of Rs.6,35,000/-to complete the construction work, and promised to complete the same by 25.01.2018, believing the words of the opposite parties the complainant further paid an amount of December-
in the month of NS.0,00,000/-to opposite party No.1 failed the opposite parties 4017. Inspite of receiving Rs.6,00,000/-
continued till 25.01.2018 and OComplete the construction even construction that was done also the aelaying the construction, and cement and steel and was of sub- standard by using cheap quality started giving lame excuses when questioned the opposite parties Mr.Md.Arshad Ali the complainant, and that one and avoided the opposite party no.1 had come representing himself the uncle of further works and demanded a forward to complete the pending and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to which this complainant agreed 27.03.2018, but the said sum of Rs.50,000/- to Md.Arshad Ali on in complete the construction following are person also failed to of railing with the polishing, complete works, i.e., construction in the ground floor and 1st floor, fixing of the grills on the doors windows were not fixed and in the ground floor hall the glass of the entire building not sliding door was not fixed, colouring frames in the ground floor done, door frames luppam to all door and 1st íloor not done, in the kitchen pipe work and water tank work not done, Massine work on the terrace of 1st floor and other Massine of building not done, grill and main gate not installed and cooling ramp infront of gate not completed, false ceiling and light at hall ground floor, 1st floor not provided. The glasses in the windows fixed and at the elevation, polish on main doors and window ground floor and 1st floor not done, kitchen platform not done. Inspite of receiving total Rs.30,00,000/- the opposite parties have failed to complete the construction work, due to which the complainant is forced to leave in a rented house by paying a rent of Rs.10,000/- per month, till date the complainant has paid a total Rs.1,50,000/- towards rent. Due to which the complainant and his family are put to suffer and undergo mental torture and agony, and instead of completing the pending works the opposite parties is resorting to illegal activities and one day i.e., 24.08.2018. The opposite party No.1 along with his uncle Arshad Ali and sub-
contractor Shafi and Zahoor along with some unsocial ailments came to the house of complainant and forcefully trespassed into the complainant's house due to which this complainant was forced to lodged a police complaint vide Crime No.97/2018 under Section 420, 448 && 506 of IPC, and the matter is under further investigation. The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 02.05.2018 claiming damages of Rs.25,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/ towards the rents. The opposite party deliberately avoided receiving the said notice hence, the same was returned un-served and inorder to escape from the Civil and Criminal liabilities the opposite party got issued a legal notice on 30.04.2008 with all false allegations to which a suitable reply was given by the complainant.
All these incomplete constructions and delay in construction by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice which acts of opposite party have not only caused harassment and inconvenience to the complainant but also caused mental agony to complainant and his family members as such the present complaint seeking damages for the deficiency of service and compensation for mental agony and house rent along with costs.
03).Written version of Opposite Parties The opposite parties filed their written version and opposed the complaint on the ground that it is not a commercial dispute as the services provided by Opposite Parties were out of friendly relationship that was existing between the complainant and Opposite Parties and that as the complainant is the father of his sons friend, and Opposite Party No.1 being an Engineer had agreed to look after the construction work that was being undertaken by the complainant and his son, and that this Opposite Parties have not prepared any plan for the construction of the building. It was the complainant and his son who already had a plan for the construction of the G+1 building and this Opposite Parties have only agreed to look after the construction work because he had knowledge of construction and was an Engineer. For which the complainant agreed to pay a total amount of Rs.28,50,000/, and that the said amount was only for the sake of construction without any profits generating out of the same. As such, there does not existing any relationship of a consumer and service provider between the complainant and Opposite Parties. As such, this court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.
(04). That the Opposite Parties 2 & 3 are no way concerned with the said transaction between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 is in the IT field and Opposite party No.3 is a student, who have nothing to do with the present understanding between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1, they have been included only to harass, block mail, threaten and make illegal gains. Hence, the present complaint is bad in law for mis-joinder of parties. That the complainant had paid Rs.23,50,000/- for the construction of ground floor and 1 nloor in the month of 2017. After which this Opposite Party commenced the construction work and also completed the same, and the complainant and his family have subsequently made several changes and incorporated for use of vitrified tiles, POP, false ceiling, standard wire fittings etc., which were never agrecd upon and as the complainant was due a sum of Rs.5,30,000/- and when a demand was made for the same, the complainant started avoiding the Opposite Parties just to avoid the balance payment.
Inspite of the complainant not paying the balance amount, this Opposite Parties have completed the construction with all the fittings and fixtures and also completed the additional work which was subsequently included by shelling down his own money, as such the Opposite Parties have incurred an amount of Rs.11,50,000/- extra. When this Opposite Parties demanded the complainant for the said balance amount and also got issued a legal notice claiming the balance amount the complainant instead of paying the balance had made a false police complaint at the Rainbazaar, Police Station with all false allegations and it is very unfortunate that under the guise of friendship, the complainant though promised to pay the balance amount later, but had adopted illegal methods by filing a police complaint only to avoid the payments and that this Opposite Party has completed the construction as agreed upon and with the fixing of railings with polish and grills to doors of ground and 1st floor were never decided before the commencement of construction and as the construction has been completed, the complainant along with his family is residing in the same and that the complainant was staying in a rented house from last 5 years but as this Opposite Parties have completed the construction they have started staying in the said new premises, and the FIR that was registered has been already A the aanne wan lalae and rivolous and the complainant 4N Dee adopting all the techniques to avoid the legitimate intention to Pynent to the oppoaite party No.l and with an only block mail and do-repute opponite parties the preaent complaint has been filed. With all intlated, exaggerated and imaginary figures frivolous and a s the 4nd a8 sch the present complaint is fale and the same Same does not tall within the Consumer Protection Act, be dismissed with exemplary costs Ansari has filed (05). The complainant Sri Ahmed Mohiuddin evidence allidavit and got marked Ex.AI to A13 and on behalf of No.3 the opposite parties Sri Mansoor Ahmed Khan, opposite party filed Chief evidenee almdavit on their behalf.
material on record.
(0o). Heard the arguments and perused the (07). Points for consideration are that:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service and any ?
unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?
3) Ifyes, to what extent? (08). Point Nos.1 2: The specilic case of the complainant is
that when he was intending to dismantle his old house and construct a new one, the opposite party No.l who is the father of his son's friend being an engineer by prolfession has put a proposal to undertake the construction work and after negotiations it was finalized that the same would be done for a total consideration of Rs.23,50,000/-and the same would be completed within 4 months, but however the opposite parties failed to complete the work within 8 the stipulated time and also had used sub-standard material.
Having received the total amount and not completing the construction work and using sub-standard raw material amounts to deficiency of service. In support of his case the complainant got marked Ex.A1 to A13. The opposite parties have opposed the complaint on the preliminary ground that there was no commercial transaction between the complainant and opposite parties since, he is not into the business of construction and only out of the friendly relationship and as he has knowledge of construction he had agreed to look after the construction work that was being undertaken by the complainant and that he was not generating any profit out of the same.
At the outset there is no written agreement between both the parties, but under Ex.Al certain specifications are mentioned, amounts and time for construction is mentioned, and the same is signed by both the parties. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that he is not a trader or has not done and commercial activity does not hold water, by way signing Ex.Al the opposite parties have agreed to provide construction services as such there exists a relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opposite parties.
As far the
as
incomplete construction, sub-standard construction and delay in construction is concerned.
Under Ex.A2 complaint has filed a list of incomplete works but the said document does not bear any signature of opposite parties and under Ex.A12 the complainant had filed 7 photographs not bear any date in order do Ld a CD but the said photographs were taken. That O ascertain as to when the said photographs Advocate not put any efforts to get an apart the complainant had incomplete work or quality Commissioner appointed for either construction neither the to sub-standard work. With regard of to ascertain the quality complainant has filed any expert report with regard to material used nor examined any expert to depose construction. And a s far a delay in the quality of material used in for Ex.Al there is a date mentioned delivery is concerned though in with regard the complaint is silent completion of construction but date of complaint and when the opposite to possession as on construction has been completed it parties have stated that the complainant to prove the becomes obligatory on the part of the In such case the delay also date of handing over of possession.
dates by this Commission.
cannot be ascertained on imaginary the complainant had not filed Similarly, with regard to rents receipts nor a rental agreement to prove that he had any rental incurred rental expenditure, in the absence of any evidence to prove that he has paid any rents the same also cannot be granted on mere statements.
Based on the foregoing discussion though we hold that the complainant is a consumer and the relationship between the complainant and opposite parties are that of consumer and service provider, but the complainant had failed to prove any deficiencies on the part of opposite parties with substantiate evidence the documents filed under ex.A2 and Ex.A7 are inadmissible as such deficiency cannot be attributed based on the said documents.
10Hence we are of the view that the complainant had failed to prove his case with substantial evidence, as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
(09). Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the steno; transcribed and typed by her; corrected and pronounced by u s in the open court on this 27th day of January, 2023.