JUDGMENT

K.B. Sangannanavar: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- Judicial Member—This is an appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OP in CC/724/2012 on the file of III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2022 (The parties herein after will be referred as to their rank assigned by the Commission below).

2. Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and appeal papers. Heard learned counsel for appellant/OP and complainant/respondent, who is party in person.

3. The facts in brief to know about the case of the parties would be stated: The Complainant along with her sisters Mrs.Y.N.Indramma, Mrs.Y.N.Umadevi and Mrs.Y.N.Kapila and their brothers Mr.Y.N.Narahari and Mr.Y.N.Narayana Murthy had entered into an agreement with OP on 02.07.2010 for construction of their house situated at No.15, 3rd Temple Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-03. OP is Proprietor of Nishanth Construction and Builders, agreed to construct building in the said property within 09 months under Construction Agreement dated 02.07.2010 for Rs.51 Lakhs. As per the said agreement the amount payable after handing over keys was Rs.2,55,000/-. According to complainant Rs.47,25,025/- was paid to OP but he has failed to complete construction of building as agreed under 02.07.2010 within 09 months of time. He has not completed construction and in such situation complainant and her siblings have to incur expenditure of Rs.10 Lakhs to complete the construction works as specified in the agreement. They have also to incurred additional expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- to complete construction as per construction agreement. Thus total due from OP would be Rs.11,50,000/-. The OP being a film producer involved in shootings, neglected construction works for over 06 months and due to his negligence agreed construction was delayed. Had he completed the works in 09 months as agreed there would be no loss incurred to OP due to increase in price, as price increased after April 2011 and there was also strike by sand truck drivers in October and November 2011. As per MOU agreed between parties, amount cannot be reduced or appreciate the value inclusive of entire construction works. The property which legally belongs to complainant and her siblings was locked by OP by not handing over the keys until 22.03.2012. He should have handed over the keys in the month of April 2011. He had thus illegally occupied their property. The work done by him is not up to the standard mentioned in the construction agreement.

4. With the above such allegations, complainant sought for direction against OP to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs along with damage of Rs.01 Lakh for escalated expenses on account of incomplete construction works and damage caused due to substandard work of OP.

5. On the contrary OP put his appearance through learned counsel, admitted construction agreement entered between complainant and himself. According to him, complainant had paid only 07 installments instead of 08 installments as agreed. He had spent Rs.08 Lakhs towards additional work done by him as instructed by complainant and he had finished the works in October 2011. The complainant had not paid 08th Installment and Rs.10 Lakhs incurred towards additional works done by him. Complainant and co-owners promised to pay the entire amount in December 2011 and then only the keys will be handed over to complainant. In February 2012 OP approached the complainant for remaining payment which was not paid despite requested to make balance payments. It is thus, his defence would be complaint deserves to be dismissed, since complainant and her siblings are still due to pay 08th installment and Rs.10 Lakhs incurred by him towards additional works done by him.

6. In view of rival contentions of parties to the complaint, Forum below held an enquiry and decided the case on 26.07.2016 holding OP rendered deficiency in service, is liable to pay Rs.11,50,000/-