V.R. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. P. PUSHPAKANATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.7.2015 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 296 of 2014 Mr. V.R. Subramanian, Proprietor, M/s. V.R.S. Builders Vs. Smt. P. Pushpakantham by which, appeal was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent entered into an agreement with the opposite party/petitioner on 3.11.2004 for the construction of house on plot bearing No. 39 measuring an extent of 1869 sq. ft. situated at No. 71, Chettipuniya Village for the construction of ground floor to an extent of 675 sq. ft at a total construction cost of Rs. 3,71,000/-. In addition to the above said amount, a further sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards rain harvesting, Rs. 20,000/- towards bore well and motor, Rs.7,000/- towards overhead tank and Rs. 15,000/- towards electricity connection and in all a sum of Rs. 4,35,000/- has been mutually agreed to the complainant and the opposite party. On the date of signing of the agreement dated 3.11.2004 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as advance and agreed to pay the balance amount within 4 months in instalments subject to progress in the construction for availing loan from the Union Bank of India and obtained a loan of Rs. 4,25,000/- and executed necessary documents. The complainant's banker had released a total sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- directly to the opposite party for the construction and the opposite party had agreed to complete the construction on or before 15.10.2005. But the opposite party failed to do so. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied the allegation stating that due to the delay in payment by the complainant the building could not be completed within the time and because of that the material costs for construction was increased in three folds and thereby the opposite party is ready and willing to refund the amount paid by the complainant and the construction work was stopped due to the non-payment of the amount by the complainant. Denying any deficiency on his part, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both parties allowed complaint and directed OP to duly complete construction on receipt of balance Rs. 10,000/- and further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was reduced to Rs. 15,000/- against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.