M. SUVARNA vs V. PENTAIAH

-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.

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. 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 construction 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.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex. A2 an amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was admittedly paid to the respondent/opposite party and the respondent in his counter admitted that this amount was received by him and that he carried out the works such as compound wall, flooring railing to the roof, etc. which were not agreed to in the original agreement and, therefore, the appellant owed him an amount of Rs. 2, 16,999/- and that the appellant''s house cannot be built under the original estimate and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service. It is clear from this admission that there is a contract between the appellant and the respondent. The District Forum has also sent Exs. A1 and A2 to the Handwriting Expert and received the report which is marked as C1 which is in favour of the appellant and the District Forum observed that the appellant has to prove her case. We do not agree with the finding of the District Forum wherein they observed that since there is a claim and counter claim, both parties should approach a Civil Court and that the Forum had no jurisdiction.

IT is held by the Apex Court in Dr. J.J. Merchant & Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedhi, reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=IV (2002) SLT 714=AIR 2002 SC 2931, that "even if a complaint is said to involve complicated issues party need not be directed to approach Civil Court and that Consumer Forum headed by judicial authorities are competent to decide complex issues. A plea that trial by a Forum is summary in nature is not a ground to direct party to a Civil Court." Ex. A2 dated 12.9.1999 entered into between the appellant and respondent does not speak of the additional works done. The respondent has not filed any material to substantiate his arguments that the unfinished works were executed by him in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties. The District Forum without going into the merits of the case has dismissed the complaints as not maintainable. On perusal of the documents filed before us and the pleadings put forward and taking into consideration Ex. C1, which is in favour of the appellant, thereby making it clear that the documents were not forged, we are of the opinion that the respondent/opposite party has committed an act of deficiency of service by not completing the construction in time and further demanding additional amounts for the additional works which were not agreed to in the agreement for completion of the said house is unfair trade practice. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in view, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum, we feel it be just and expedient to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for completion of the unfinished works undertaken by the appellant together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-

IN the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for completion of the unfinished works undertaken by the appellant together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-. Time for compliance six weeks failing which the sum of Rs. 75,000/- would attract interest at 9% p.a. Appeal allowed.