Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
THIRU K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER, THIRU S.M. MURUGESSHAN, MEMBER
Moorthy - Appellant
Versus
Preethi - Respondent
F.A. No. 310 of 2015
Decided on : 11-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M/s. P.S. Seetharaman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. O. Raman, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum based on the aggregate value of services availed and the amount claimed as compensation.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Construction Agreement - Section 15, Section 17(1)(a)(ii) - [Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 11(1) which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum. The court emphasized the importance of considering the aggregate value of the services availed and the amount claimed as compensation for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. The interpretation of the Act led to the conclusion that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the total value exceeding the jurisdictional limit.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant entered into construction agreements with the opposite party for building a house. The complainant claimed compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, alleging that the opposite party failed to complete the construction satisfactorily despite receiving payment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Forum's dismissal of the complaint was justified as the complainant failed to prove the need for Rs. 5,00,000 to complete the unfinished work. Additionally, the court held that the District Forum lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint due to the total value exceeding the jurisdictional limit.
Issues: The issues revolved around the complainant's claim for compensation, the sufficiency of evidence provided, and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the claim for compensation and the interpretation of Section 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, which led to the finding that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chengalpattu, due to the lack of evidence for the compensation claim and the District Forum's lack of pecuniary jurisdiction.
ORDER :
Thiru K. Baskaran, Presiding Judicial Member-This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/complainants under Section 15 read with Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum, Chengalpattu made in C.C.No. 10/2014 dated 27.8.2015 dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Forum Chengalpattu.
3. The unsuccessful complainant who lost his case before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chengalpattu (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) has preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is that the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned District Forum, Chengalpattu claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of deficiency in service and Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony alleging inter alia that the complainant and the opposite party had entered into a construction agreement on 3.6.2012 for putting up construction in the ground floor of the land belonging to the complainant and the 2nd agreement on 19.9.2012 for putting up construction in the first floor and third agreement on 19.6.2013 for completing unfinished work as per the previous two agreements and in spite of the complainant having paid the entire cost of construction and another sum of Rs. 4,00,000 out of Rs. 5,00,000 as additional cost agreed in the third agreement the opposite party had not completed the construction and the construction made was also not to the satisfaction of the complainant and hence the opposite party should be directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation for the deficiency in service representing cost of completing the unfinished work and Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony.
5. The opposite party did not enter appearance and contest the claim of the complainant and he was set ex parte on 11.6.2014 and the learned District Forum had dismissed the complaint on merits and hence the aggrieved complainant has come before us by way of this appeal.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the learned District Forum, Chengalpattu dated 27.8.2015 made in C.C.No. 10/2014 has to be set aside for the reasons set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal?
Point:
7. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit of the complainant was filed and Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked and in addition Ex C1 Advocate Commissioner’s report was also marked originally.
8. The case of the complainant is that he had entered into a construction agreement on 3.6.2012 under Ex A1 for construction of a house in the ground floor to the extent of 1,064 sq.ft for a total cost of Rs. 13,50,000 and during the construction of the ground floor he had again entered into an agreement on 19.9.2012 with the same opposite party for the construction of first floor measuring 1,040 sq.ft. for Rs. 13,50,000 and had paid the entire cost of construction namely Rs. 27,00,000 and the opposite party had demanded an additional amount for putting doors doing pending tiles work etc. against the agreed terms and conditions and anyhow at the intervention of the mediators the complainant and the opposite party had entered into a third agreement on 19.6.2013 by and under which the complainant had agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5,00,000 and had paid Rs. 4,00,000 and in spite of that the opposite party had not completed the construction and the construction made was also not satisfactorily and hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
9. The learned District Forum had confined its discussion on merits to paragraph 7 only. In paragraph 7 the learned District Forum had held that the Civil Engineer in his report had not furnished the estimated value of the work to be carried out and in that circumstance the District Forum was unab
