MANOHARA RAO KODAVOOR Vs. TATYA INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint under Sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') alleges deficiency in service by the opposite party who is a civil construction company and was engaged by the complainant to construct a house for him on plot no. 8 Ferns North Star, Huttenhalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore (North) 526 149 in 2014.

(2.) The facts as, stated by the complainant, are that on 17/2/2014, the opposite party offered their services for Architectural Design and Turn Key Contracting Solutions with the complainant for construction of his house and offered to appoint its associates M/s 4Site Architects for Architectural Design Service. Bill of Quantities was provided on 24/2/2014 and 19/2/2014 and the scope of the work was outlined. Cost of the project was estimated at Rs.1,43,81,520.00. As per the demand notice, the complainant paid an advance of Rs.15,66,780.00 and it was agreed that the project would be completed by October 2015. Payments were to be made by the complainant on a construction linked basis and certain items were to be sourced directly by the complainant on payment to the supplier. Complainant states that he made regular payments against the invoice raised. As the opposite party insisted that the complainant should release the payment directly to it, between 7/4/2014 and 25/4/2017 the complainant states that he paid Rs.1,85,25,370.00 to the opposite party. However, in October 2015, the construction was found to be behind schedule and the opposite party extended the date of completion to May 2016. Thereafter, this date was extended to November 2016 and on 31/12/2016, the complainant called upon the opposite party to fix a firm date by way of an e-mail. The opposite party assured that the project would be completed by 30/3/2017. Since the complainant had already spent nearly Rs.2.00 crores and the villa was far from complete, the work executed was audited by mutual agreement by the site architects and by a reputed audit firm, M/s Rohini Project Management Consultant Pvt., Ltd. Measurement for verification at the site was jointly undertaken by the opposite party and the audit firm and in the report sent by e-mail on 6/2/2017 it was stated that the work was not as per the work order and that various items had been shown without measurement for which the rates were at variance from the rates agreed and without the approval of the complainant or the architects. An excess expenditure of Rs.96,67,720.00 was estimated on the basis of this report. The complainant sent a legal notice dtd. 25/1/2018 calling upon the opposite party to refund Rs.96,67,720.00 along with Rs.25.00 lakh as compensation for mental harassment which was duly received by the opposite party on 29/1/2018. The opposite party failed to refund this amount and vide reply dtd. 12/2/2018 denied the allegations in an evasive manner. The complainant then filed a complaint with the police alleging cheating and fraud by the opposite party and an FIR dtd. 15/7/2017 (no. 0131 of 2017) was filed. The complainant is before this Commission with the following prayer:

(3.) The opposite party failed to enter appearance despite notice which was served on him on 15/1/2018. On 15/2/2109, his right to file written version was closed and the matter was listed for hearing after issuance of notice to the parties by e-mail on 8/8/2022. Since the opposite party continued to remain absent on the subsequent dates of hearing, the matter was finally heard on 11/7/2023, when the opposite party was placed ex parte in view of a last opportunity having been provided to him on 21/6/2023.