IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH        PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                       R.P.NO.24/2024

 

(Against CMP.No.123/2023 in CC.NO.39/2020 on the file of the DCDRC, Tiruppur)

 

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF JUNE 2024

                            

C.R.Rajesh

Proprietor of M/s. Vinayaga Promoters

90, Muthu Nagar 3^rd Street                                      M/s. R. Prem Narayan

Kongu Main Road                                                          Counsel for

Tiruppur – 07                                                     Petitioner / Opposite party

 

                  Vs.

 

R. Muruga Prasath

S/o.Ramasamy

No.2/441, Madheswara Nagar                                  M/s. K. Shanmugakani

Ganapathipalayam                                                         Counsel for

Tiruppur- 641 605                                                 Respondents/ Complainant 

 

          This Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner / opposite party praying to set aside the order dt.13.12.2023 made in CMP.No.123/2023 in CC.No.39/2020 before the District Commission, Tiruppur.

 

          The Petition is coming up before me on 19.6.2024 for consideration, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for bothsides, this commission made the following order.

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH,   PRESIDENT     

 

1.       This Revision Petition is filed as against the order of the District Commission, Tiruppur dt.13.12.2023 in CMP.No.123/2023 in CC.No.39/2020 praying for permission for the petitioner to revisit the property with the advocate commissioner, alongwith qualified civil engineer from the engineering college and to submit a detailed report.

 2.      The main case of the complainant is that that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the opposite party for construction of a house.   But the opposite party had not constructed the house as per the agreement, and had used the poor and very low quality of materials for construction.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission. 

 

3.       The allegations raised by the complainant were opposed by the opposite party by filing their written version.

 

4.       Pending complaint, the complainant filed a petition in CMP.No.94/2022 in CC.No.39/2020,  praying for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the property and to submit a report.

 

5.       The above petition was allowed by the District Commission as per order dt.17.4.2023, and Mr. S.Kalimuthu, Advocate, has been appointed as an Advocate Commissioner.  The Advocate Commissioner, had visited the property, alongwith the Civil Engineer viz. Er.V.A.Karthickraja, and had submitted his report as directed by the District Commission on 14.8.2023 . 

 

6.       Whileso, the Petitioner/ opposite party has filed a petition in CMP.No.123/2023 in CC.No.39/2020 before the District Commission praying to permit the petitioner/ opposite party to revisit the building with the Advocate Commissioner, with the help of qualified civil Engineer from the Engineering college.

 

7.       The petition praying to permit the opposite party to revisit the building with the Advocate Commissioner, was strenuously opposed by the Respondent/ complainant by filing their counter. 

 

8.       The District Commission after analysing the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the District Commission as per order dt.17.4.2023, had visited the property alongwith a qualified engineer, and had submitted his report.  The opposite party also had visited the spot alongwith the commissioner.  The opposite party had not filed any objection to the report filed by the Advocate commissioner, but filed this petition praying for permission to revisit the property, which is only to dra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document