K.Raja vs S.R.STEPHEN

THE first opposite party in O.P. No. 131/2000 on the file of the District Forum, Salem is the appellant herein.

THE complaint by the first respondent herein was to the following effect: He had entered into an arrangement with the first opposite party for the construction of a church and a house on 31.3.1999. He had paid a total sum of Rs. 3,16,650 at regular intervals. THE appellant did not stick to the terms of the arrangement. THE construction was not done as per the norms or contents of the agreement between the parties. THE building had cracked in the roof and other places as the proportion of cement in the sand was not at the agreed rate. When the complainant questioned the first opposite party, he left the building in an unfinished state demanding a sum of Rs. 34,000 as if he had finished the work. THE unfinished works were as follows: (1) patching of the cracked roof and building walls; (2) fixing two doors with painting; (3) mosaic polishing for a hall and two rooms; and (4) slap covers for the water tanks. The complainant also took a stand that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3/respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein were also liable for the loss caused to the complainant as they received commission from the first opposite party/appellant. After the first opposite party abandoned the works, the complainant spent Rs. 25,000 towards unfinished construction. In such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed for payment of Rs. 25,000 for the unfinished work, Rs. 10,000 towards compensation for mental agony and physical pain and costs.

The second opposite party remained ex parte. The first opposite party filed a version which was adopted by the third opposite party. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had nothing to do with the construction work. The complainant was liable to pay @ Rs. 350 per sq. ft. But he had paid only Rs. 3,16,650 instead of Rs. 4,00,400. The work had been done properly and the defects reported were not true. There was a complaint lodged by him in the Suramangalam Police Station where a compromise was arrived at. As per the terms of which the complainant was to pay Rs. 32,150, which he did not pay.

THE District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party that the first opposite party had not sent any reply to the legal notice issued under Ex. A3, that he failed and neglected to furnish any details in support of his case, that there was deficiency in service on his part. By order dated 5.8.2002, the District Forum directed the first opposite party/appellant to pay Rs. 25,000 which the complainant had spent to complete the unfinished works left by the opposite parties, to pay Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 500 towards costs. The appeal has been filed against the said decision by the 1st opposite party.

THE complainant is a priest. He had entrusted the construction work of a prayer hall as well as a house to the appellant. THE latter agreed to execute the work at the rate of Rs. 350 per sq. ft. THEre was an agreement entered into on 31.3.1999. It is also in evidence and also admitted by the first opposite party that he had received Rs. 3,16,650 till 31.1.2000 for the construction. He had also admitted that he had not laid the mosaic for a hall and two rooms as well as 2 slab covers for the water tanks. THE defence was that there was balance payable by the complainant and, therefore, the work was not completed. As per the case of the first opposite party himself as found by the District Forum there was balance work to be done by him and which he did not complete. Without completing the work, it was ununderstadable as to how the first opposite party made a claim for Rs. 32,150 to complete the construction works. He had not produced any material to substantiate the cost of the unfinished works. THE complainant had caused a notice to be issued to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 under Ex. A3. Ex. A4 is the postal receipt and Ex. A5 is the acknowledgement of the 1st opposite party. If really the stand taken by him was true, he would have responded by sending a suitable reply to the lawyer notice. Only as an after thought a defence had been put forward in the version that the complainant owed moneys and that was the reason why certain works were left unfinished. As rightly pointed out by the District Forum there was no evidence in substantiating the stand taken by the appellant/1st opposite party. In such circumstances, we find that the order passed by the District Forum is correct and no interference is called for. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.