At, Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E.J. BELLIE
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.S. KANDASAMY
For the Complainant: Bharathi Kumar, Power Agent. For the Opposite Party: Mohan Parasaran, Advocate.
E.J. Bellie, President
1. The case of the complainant who is represented by his mother and Power Agent Mrs. Bharathi Kumar is in short that the complainant wanted the opposite party who are builders to put up a construction for him in his land. For this the opposite party-builders had retained with them a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- out of the sale price of Rs. 33,09375/- in respect of a plot purchased by them from the complainant and his father. According to the complainant, the opposite party delayed the construction. The complainant performed Grahapravesam of the house in an incomplete stage on 17th April, 1994. Following this several accessories such as doors etc., were removed by the opposite party without notice to the complainant. Regarding this, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party on 15.5.94. The possession of the house was handed over to the complainant on 25.5.94. Several cracks had begun to appear in the walls. Structural defects and the poor quality of construction were clearly reflected during the rains from 1st November, 1994 to 15th November, 1994. The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party detailing the structural defects. But there was no reply. Another letter was sent on 30.1.95 and to that there was only on evasive reply. Again another letter was sent an 15.2.95 and to that also there was no reply. On these grounds, the complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- for physical suffering and mental torture and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages for non user of the bedroom due to defects in it and Rs. 50,000/- for rectifying the defects, Rs. 30,000/- for construction of demarcation work and installation of gates which was demo-lished by the opposite party.
2. The opposite party denied the allegations made against them in the complaint. It is denied that there was delay in the construction of the building. It is contended that the opposite party are a reputed builders and they never quarrelled with the complainant but the complainant’s Power Agent’s approach towards them has been provoking. The possession of the house was handed over to the complainant on 25.5.94 on himself and his father executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.5.94 through their Power Agent to the effect that the complainant was satisfied with the construction in all respects and there is no claim against the opposite party and the opposite party is absolved of all the claims. There was no major cracks, ceiling etc., in the building and there wasno leakage at all as alleged. Even though the opposite party was not obliged to do anything regarding the building in view of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.5.94, they had still attended to some works in the building as required by the Power Agent of the complainant. Therefore, the opposite party is not liable to do anything or to pay any amount to the complainant and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the opposite party is liable to pay the amounts claimed by the complainant.
4. Point : -Even at the outset it can be stated that it is a frivolous and vexatious complaint. The complainant in his complaint running to 10 pages has clearly suppressed one material fact which is enough to dis-entiile him to any claim. It is not in dispute that, as contended by the opposite party, the parties namely the complainant and his father through their Power Agent on the one side and the opposite party on the other side have executed Ex. Bl a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.5.94. This document is to the effect that the complainant and his father are quite satisfied with the work done by the opposite party and their entire claim with the opposite party has been settled fully and thereafter they have nothing to do with the opposite party. But, however, in the complaint no whisper about it has been made and it has been suppressed and it (Bl) has been filed only after the written version was filed by the opposite party referring to the document. It is also stated in the Memorandum of Understanding that the notice Ex. A4 dated 15.5.94 sent by the complainant and his father dated 15.5.94 to the opposite party in respect of the building in question stands withdrawn unconditionally and all or any claims/demands raised in the said notice stands settled fully and irrevocably and there is no surviving right for the complainant and his father in respect of the said notice. The matter having been so unequivocally settled and given a quietus, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant to say anything further. May be subsequent to Ex. B 1 Memorandum of Understanding the opposite parties have carried out some w
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ork in the building, but that, they did, according to them, out of grace at the request by the complainant and to maintain their reputation. As mentioned above, the complaint is frivolous and vexatious one which has been filed With the hope of getting a decree for some money taking advantage of the position that the complainant need not pay Court fee on the amount claimed. 5. The complaint is dismissed. We order the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Complaint dismissed with costs.