M.SUVARNA Vs. V.PENTAIAH
LAWS(APCDRC)-2004-6-3
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on June 24,2004

M.SUVARNA Appellant
VERSUS
V.Pentaiah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.SHREESHA,MEMBER - (1.) THE appellant in F.A. No. 987/2003 is the complainant in C.D. No. 532/2000 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of Plot No. 6 admeasuring 220 sq. yards situated at Raghavendranagar locality, Uppal. She entrusted this plot to the opposite party, who is Maistry, for construction of four rooms, one hall, two kitchen rooms, three attached bathrooms and one single bathroom and it was agreed that the construction with all the materials like teak wood shutters with glasses, window grills, flooring with Bethamacherla in all rooms and marble flooring in hall, etc., and both parties entered into an agreement dated 17.2.1999 with the terms and conditions according to which the opposite party should hand over the fully constructed house within three to four months and the complainant herein paid Rs. 3,80,000/ - out of Rs. 4,00,000/ - on different dates through cheques and cash. On 12.9.1999 the opposite party executed a document in favour of the complainant admitting the pending works which were left by him and demanded Rs. 10,000/ - extra. In all Rs. 3,95,000/ - was received by him. Since the opposite party failed to complete the building by 19.10.1999 the complainant submits that because of this delay in completion, she has to pay Rs. 2,000/ - per month towards rent and the opposite party has agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/ - towards rental charges. Thereafter the opposite party failed to execute the pending works and the complainant spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - to complete the same. Hence the complaint.
(3.) THE opposite party filed a counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable since there is no contract between the parties and that the complainant has told him to complete the work whenever money is available and he has agreed to complete the construc -tion and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint. He also submits that four rooms, one hall, two kitchens, etc. with all electrical works and fitting cannot be done with an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/ - and that if any document dated 17.2.1999 is existing, it is a fraudulent and fabricated one. The document dated 12.9.1999 regarding pending works is also forged document and opposite party is not a party to the same. However, opposite party admits receipt of Rs. 3,95,000/ - and states that the complainant still owes him a sum of Rs. 1,84,725/ - vide his legal notice dated 10.5.2000 which was done after the correct measures were taken with the help of a Civil Engineer. The opposite party further submits that the estimates given by the complainant for Rs. 3,50,484/ - is wrong and that there is no deficiency in service on his behalf and seeks dismissal of the complaint. Based on the evidence adduced and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as not maintainable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.