K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The Opposite party in COP No.277/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: - There was an agreement entered into between the complainant and the Opposite party on 20/10/97 for construction of a house for the complainant by the opposite party. The agreement provided that the building should be completed within a period of three months. The Opposite party took one year and for the extra work the complainant had to make payment. In the site there was a small old building in existence and as per the agreement, four feet earth work had to be undertaken for the foundation. Instead of laying the foundation for the whole area, the opposite party left the old building as it was constructed and on the very same foundation put up construction with lime and sand without using cement. While the construction was in progress, the complainant raised objections but the opposite party assured the complainant that he would raise pillars to give support to the old building, but he did not do that. As a result, a major crack developed in the building and it was likely to damage the entire construction. The opposite party left the building incomplete, without plastering, without even constructing a compound wall, painting, etc, and handed over the building sometime in October 1999. The complainant had to engage another builder and complete the pending works spending Rs.20,000/-. The complainant was worried about the old structure as a major crack had developed and it would collapse if the foundation or protection by raising the pillars was not done within a short span. A sum of Rs.1 lakh would be needed by the complainant for doing that work. The complainant had paid extra amount of Rs.57,000/- to the opposite party instead of Rs.3,25,000/- as agreed. Septic tank, compound wall and sump which were not shown in the drawing had to be done and a sum of Rs.51,000/- was incurred for that purpose. Still, the opposite party was left with Rs.6,000/- extra. The complainant sent a notice. The opposite party sent a reply claiming extra cost which was not tenable. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for a direction to the opposite party to destroy the structure constructed on the old structure and to lay new foundation as per the agreement and re-construct the building or order payment of Rs.1 lakh so as to enable the complainant to reconstruct that portion, to refund the extra amount of Rs.6,000/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- for the incomplete work, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,000/- towards expenses for the complaint and Rs.1,000/- to meet the Commissioners fees in case a Commissioner was appointed.
(2.) The Opposite party filed a version disputing the various allegations and further stating as follows: - The complainant had already constructed 240 Sq.ft. of building upto the lintel level. The additional and excess work not covered by the agreement carried out by the opposite party involved Rs.1,05,965/- viz., for compound wall, underground water tank, septic tank and portico and staircase. This amount the complainant was liable to pay to the opposite party. The opposite party did not undertake to demolish the old construction and put up a new structure with foundation of four feet. Any defect in the old building could not be attributed to the opposite party. It was not correct to say that major cracks had developed in the building. The delay in the construction of the building was due to delay in payment by the complainant. It was not correct to say that the complainant engaged another builder for completing the incomplete works. There was no basis for the complainants apprehension that the old structure had developed cracks and it would collapse. The alleged crack was not due to any defect in the construction by the opposite party. There was no excess payment made by the complainant. The complainant had forcibly entered the premises without the consent and knowledge of the opposite party. Materials worth Rs.7,400/- were kept in the premises. That amount was payable by the complainant. The opposite party had put up construction to the tune of Rs.4,30,965/- including a sum of Rs.1,05,965/- for the additional and extra works. The complainant had paid only Rs.3,82,000/- and there was a balance of Rs.48,965/- apart from Rs.7,400/- being the value of the building materials left in the premises. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party no document was marked. There was a Commissioner appointed who inspected the property and filed report which was marked as Ex.C-1.;