ANURAG OJHA vs VINAYAKA GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI, SAMITI MARYADIT

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.12.2004 in Complaint No. 58/2004 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) directing the respondent/society to pay to the complainant/appellant compensation of Rs. 20,000 besides the refund of Rs. 30,246 spent by the complainant/appellant towards construction of the building; as also to pay Rs. 5,000 as fee paid to the expert and Rs. 2,000 as cost of the complaint.

THE facts not in dispute are that the complainant/appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent/society in December, 2001 for construction of a house on plot No. C-5 of the Vinayaka Housing Society, developed by the respondents. It was agreed between the parties that the construction would be completed within 6 months and the same would be of good quality. The averments of the complainant were that the construction was not completed within the stipulated period of 6 months and, in fact, possession of the house was given to him belatedly in February, 2003 i.e., after about 15 months. It was also averred that there was mis-management of respondent/society, resulting in sub-standard construction and the complainant had to get the incomplete work of the construction, completed at his own cost amounting to Rs. 30,246. It was also averred that the area of land as agreed between the parties was not given to him and the boundary wall was constructed in the area of some other person. It was also averred that there was leakage, seepage and cracks in the roofs and walls, flooring was not up to the mark and the sanitary fittings were also sub-standard. He, therefore, claimed compensation on various counts as enumerated in the complaint.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent/society. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service by the respondent/society. It was denied that the area of the plot was less than that was agreed between the parties. It was further averred that the construction was as per agreement between the parties. It was further averred that the complainant himself opted to fix up the tiles and spent the amount for that purpose. It was further averred that the construction on 650 sq. ft. as stipulated and the same was as per the specifications. It was further averred that there was no deficiency in service by the respondent/society.

THE District Forum in the impugned order held that the flooring, plastering of walls and the roof was not up to the mark and the complainant had also to incur an expenditure of Rs. 30,246 in fixing up the tiles, etc; which was not done by the respondent/society. THErefore, besides directing refund of the amount of Rs. 30,246, compensation of Rs. 20,000 for sub-standard and defective construction was awarded. Further, Rs. 5,000 towards fee of the expert and Rs. 2,000 as cost of the complaint were also awarded. Learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant in this appeal prayed that, the District Forum has failed to award adequate compensation. It was also submitted that no compensation has been awarded for the delay in construction. It was further submitted that amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced as there is no boundary wall in the area handed over to the complainant. Besides the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental torture on account of defective and sub-standard construction, etc. by the respondents, which should have been duly compensated.

AS against this, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the District Forum has assessed the damage and awarded adequate compensation to the complainant and that the same does not deserve to be enhanced. We have considered the contentions advanced by both sides and perused the record. The first grievance of the complainant is that, the boundary wall was not constructed in his portion of land and it was handed over to some other person resulting in loss and necessitating the construction of boundary wall by him. It was also submitted that there was great delay in construction which was much more than 6 months as stipulated between the parties. It was also submitted that the construction was on a lesser area than was agreed upon by the parties.

FROM the material on record, it would appear that there was an agreement dated 8.3.2002, copy of which has been filed on record. As per the said agreement construction on 600 sq. ft. of land was to be made by the respondent/society. It may be noticed that the construction carried out by the respondents was to the extent of 543 sq. ft. as reported by Jalaj Kumar Soni who is a Civil Engineer. It was also reported by him that there was no boundary wall in plot No. C-5 of the complainant/appellant. He has also pointed out that there were several other defects in the construction as detailed by him in his report. Similarly, the report of head of the Department of Architecture, Engineering College, Raipur, also shows that the construction was not up to the mark. There were several defects including structural damage to the roof. There was seepage in the wall and painting and wood work, etc. was also not up to the mark. It was also stated that the plinth area was less than 600 sq. ft.

IN view of the above reports, it is clear that the construction was sub-standard. It is also not in dispute that the construction was made on a lesser area than was agreed upon between the parties. There was no dispute that the construction was to be completed within 6 months as per terms of the agreement. Admittedly, it was not completed within the said period. The boundary wall was also not constructed on the area of plot No. C-5 where complainant''s house was located. Obviously, the construction was in lesser area with several shortcomings in the construction and absence of boundary wall in his area must have resulted in considerable mental torture, financial loss and expenses. It is thus clear that the complainant was subjected to much inconvenience and harassment. Accordingly, we consider it proper to enhance the amount of compensation on account of delay in construction, construction on lesser area, on account of absence of boundary wall on the plot of the complainant/appellant, as also due to construction of inferior quality. It appears just and proper in the circumstances of the case to award Rs. 30,000 more to the complainant/appellant, besides the amount already awarded by the District Forum.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order awarded by the District Forum is modified and amount of compensation enhanced by Rs. 30,000 and it is directed that the respondent shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant a total amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation on account of shortcomings in the construction as pointed out above i.e., additional amount of Rs. 30,000 as compensation. Besides the above amount, the respondent/society shall also be liable to pay to the complainant/appellant Rs. 30,246 spent by the complainant/appellant in completing the construction work as also Rs. 5,000 paid by him towards expense and cost of the complaint, as awarded by the District Forum. The amount as above shall be payable within 2 months from the date of this order failing which it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default. Appeal partly allowed.