State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.K.Vijaya Laxmi W/O.K.Mohan Rao ... vs Sri K.Adiseshagiri S/O.K.Sitarama ... on 22 August, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.178/2012 against C.C.No.187/2008 District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. Between Smt.K.Vijaya Laxmi W/o.K.Mohan Rao, aged 54 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-19-59/68, Sitaram Colony, Kalyanpuri, Uppal, Hyderabad, R R District. ..Appellant/ Complainant And Sri K.Adiseshagiri S/o.K.Sitarama Sastry Aged 35 years, Occ:Builder and Proprietor/M.D. of M/s.Sonali Constructions, R/o.2-19-59/59, Sitaram Colony, Kalyanpuri, Uppal, Hyderabad, R.R.District. Respondent/ Opp.party. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. G.Narender Raj Counsel for the Respondent : - Notice sent returned as left and hence of notice held insufficient. QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order C.C.No.187/2008 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainants husband retired from service and purchased two open plots from M.Rani and M.Veeramani i.e. vendors and entered into agreement of sale on 10-9-2003 in respect of plot Nos. 67 and 68 admeasuring 60 sq. yds. each in Sy.Nos.789/1, Uppal Kalan & Municipality, Ranga Reddy District and the vendors gave the physical possession of the plot. The complainant submitted that as her husband was in government service, they could not take up construction on his own and hence approached Vasthu Architect in the month of December, 2004 for construction of independent house with G+1 who gave an estimate of construction for Rs.6,00,000/- with plinth area of 1400 sft. and they were satisfied with the estimation and supposed to pay advance. The complainant submitted that she submitted the plan to Uppal Municipality on the name of the Vendors since the plots were not registered. The complainant submitted that the opposite party approached them to complete the house in a better manner for the same price quoted by Vasthu Architect and therefore the complainant impressed by his quote paid regular amounts totalling to Rs.6,00,000/- at different intervals. The complainant submitted that despite receiving entire consideration, the opposite party has not completed the building as per the promise made and was reluctant to complete the construction works and as the house warming ceremony was fixed on 05-2-2006, the complainant completed the unfinished works i.e. plastering, the roof, drainage works and major carpentry by spending Rs.1,35,100/- with independent contractors.
The complainant submitted that the opposite party also induced the complainants husband and received Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.4,80,000/- vide cheques for the purpose of an independent house at Ghatkeswar. The complainant further submitted that there was no written agreement between them and the opposite party and taking advantage of the verbal agreement, the opposite party issued notice to the complainants husband and demanded more amounts by suppressing the real facts in which he admitted receipt of Rs.6,00,000/- towards construction of the house and therefore the complainant also got issued a legal notice on 20-9-2008 demanding Rs.1,35,000/- together with interest but did not respond. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to payRs.135,000/- spent for unfinished works together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. and costs.
Opposite party filed counter resisting the complaint and contended that the complaint is not maintainable and also barred by limitation. Opposite party submitted that the complainant purchased an unalienable property i.e. patta land allotted to landless poor forbidden either for sale or purchase and has not approached the Forum with clean hands and when he demanded the amount spent on the house, she is blaming the opposite party for a wrongful gain.
Opposite party submitted that he constructed the house in active participation and advice of the complainant and her husband with such deviation and they were impressed with the work but denied that they were regular in payments and that he agreed to construct the house for a total consideration of Rs.6,00,000/-. He submitted that the rate of construction was Rs.500/- for ground floor and Rs.400/- for 1st floor and extra amount for other associated works and the total construction cost came to Rs.9,50,000/- and the fully constructed house was delivered on 26-1-2006. He denied that he has not completed the house in all respects and denied that the complainant spent Rs.1,35,000/- towards unfinished works.
He admitted that a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was paid during construction and at the final calculation, the complainants husband gave a post dated cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- and subsequently after mediation, he gave another cheque for Rs.1,30,000/- and both these cheques were dishonoured and the complainants husband is facing criminal trial on the III MM Court, Cyberabad and the complainant had filed this false case at the instance of her husband to harass him. Opposite party admitted that there was no written agreement for construction between the parties and that the complainant has taken advantage of the same and was harassing him and making him run from pillar to post to recover the material and submitted that there is no deficiency in service and that the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A11 and B1 and B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
It is the main case of the complainant that she and her husband wished to construct a house and the opposite party approached them with a promise of quality construction to construct a house of 1400 sft in 120 sq. yds. at Uppal Kalan Village and paid Rs.6,00,000/- at different intervals to the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party did not complete the building as per promise and as the complainants fixed the date 5-2-2006 for house warming ceremony and as the construction was not completed, they themselves spent an amount of Rs.1,35,100/- and completed the works. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that they paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. Rs.4,80,000/- and Rs.20,000/- in cash to opposite party for purchase of an independent house at Ghatkeswar. The opposite party got issued a legal notice, Ex.A8, dated 5-7-2007, that the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was dishonoured, for which the complainant replied (Ex.A9) that the opposite party is due Rs.1,35,100/- and that the cheque bounce cases do not pertain to the subject house.
It is the respondent/opposite partys case that there is no transaction with respect to Ghatkeswar house and that he is a licensed builder and the amounts that were to be paid to him by the complainant was still due as on the date of his issuance of notice.
We observe from the record that CC 523/2007 on 13-8-2007 evidenced under Ex.B2 has been filed before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad by the opposite party against the complainant U/s.138 of N.I.Act, 1881 for dishonouring of the cheque of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has filed this C.C. before the District Forum on 29-10-2008 subsequent to the cheque bounce case against him. We also observe from the record that there is no written agreement between the complainant and the opposite party with respect to construction of a house describing the time period as to when it should be completed or the amenities to be provided and also the date of delivery of possession. In the absence of this documentary evidence, we cannot conclude that there is any deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.
We are of the considered view that in the absence of any material evidence establishing total consideration to be paid by the complainants to the opposite party, the contention of the complainant that the total cost agreed upon is Rs.6,00,000/- and not Rs.8,50,000/- as contended upon by the opposite party, is unsustainable.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.22-8-2012