V. SRIDHARAN Vs. M/A. SREYAS
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
M. THANIKACHALAM J. -
(1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The appellant/ complainant, approached the District Forum, seeking
direction against the opposite parties, for the payment of Rs.4,40,000/-
with subsequent interest, on the following grounds:
The complainant, and the opposite party entered into a construction
agreement dt.8.10.1997, for the construction of a flat, valued at
Rs.15,18,400/-, measuring an extent of 1104 sq.ft. Pursuant to that, the
complainant paid a total sum of Rs.14,00,000/-, and the opposite party
agreed to adjust the balance of Rs.1,18,400/- towards the omission for
providing covered car park, since it was not provided, or it should be
deemed to have been paid the entire price, and in this view, there is no
(3.) The builder/ opposite party, committed many acts of deficiency, and
due to this, in the bathroom, roof fell down, causing damage, which was
agreed to be replaced by the opposite party. The omission on the part of
the opposite party, to replace the false roofing, should be construed as
deficiency in service, for which the opposite party is liable to pay a
sum of Rs.25000/-.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.