Muraleedharan vs Dr. K.R. Leena & Anr.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainant allegedly approached the petitioner for construction of a residential building with a plinth area of 132.35 square metres. He paid the entire consideration of Rs. 8,19,000/- demanded by the petitioner though according to him only 95% of the work had been done. The complainant started residing in the house but noticed several cracks and other defects in the said house. The defects included seepage through the cracks. The cracks were specified in paragraph 3 of the consumer complaint. Some other defects in the construction are also alleged. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation quantified at Rs. 4 lacs from the petitioner as well as from respondent No. 2, who had allegedly supervised the construction.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as by R-2. It was alleged by R-2 that he being only a supervisor and having not received any consideration there was no privity of contract between him and the complainant. The petitioner, however, claimed that the complainant who is is a disciple of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar had contacted the petitioner through Sh. Hari Kumar and Sh. Chandrasekharan. The complainant requested her to provide his workers. The petitioner who is an A-class contractor and has constructed several buildings agreed to help the complainant in minimising the expenditure to be incurred on the construction. It was also alleged in the written version filed by the petitioner that only 90% of the construction work was completed and the plastering of the house was to be done but the complainant insisted that no plaster was required. It is also alleged that the petitioner had suggested the construction of one or two pillars of the west side of the house of but the complainant insisted that those pillars were not required. Thus, according to the petitioner the complainant himself was responsible for the alleged cracks in the house. As regards the construction it was alleged that the complainant had returned only Rs.3,45,000/- to the petitioner out of the expenditure incurred by him and the balance difference amount was still due from him.

The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lacs to the complainant.

Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum both the parties approached the concerned State Commission by way of separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 11.04.2012 the State Commission enhanced the compensation of Rs. 1.5 lacs thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and partly allowing the appeal filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Commission by way of these revision petitions.

The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the complaint was a consumer of the petitioner or not. The answer to this question is depend as to whether the petitioner worked gratuitously for the complainant or had constructed the house for him against consideration. The plea taken by the petitioner in his written version was that he was to instruct the complainant and he was to help her nearby contractor M/s Shilpi Constructions to minimise the expenditure to be incurred on the construction of the house. However, no one from the Shilpi Constructions was produced by the petitioner before the District Forum. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner in this regard does not inspire confidence and cannot be believed. Even otherwise this is petitioner's own case that he had spent much more than the amount received from the complainant on the construction of the house and huge amount was still due to him from the complainant. There would be no logical reason for the petitioner to incur such huge expenditure from his own pocket if he was acting gratuitously and he was only to help in containing the expenditure of complainant on the construction of the house. Had that been the position the payment would have been made directly by the complainant and not to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire story set up by the petitioner seems to be a concocted story and cannot be believed.

Though the case of the petitioner is that he had received Rs.3,44,000/- from the complainant and balance amount out of the expenditure incurred by him was still payable to him the said allegation does not seem to be correct. The possession of the house was duly delivered to complainant. Had the entire sale consideration not been received by the petitioner he would not have delivered possession to the complainant or the least he would have done was to obtain a written acknowledgement from the complainant promising to pay the balance amount within a specified time limit. That having not been done there is no escape from the conclusion that the entire consideration had been paid before delivering possession of the complete house to the complainant.

The State Commission appointed two Court Commissioners to inspect the work executed by the petitioner. One Court Commissioner assessed the cost of repairs at Rs. 2.2. lakhs whereas the other Court Commissioner assessed the cost of repairs at Rs. 2.6 lakhs. A perusal of the reports would show that the inspection was carried out in the presence of the parties. No request was made by the petitioner for cross examination of the Court Commissioners in order to impeach their reports. Therefore, there is no reason for not relying upon the reports submitted by the Court Commissioners, after inspecting the spot in the presence of both the parties. The State Commission has not awarded even the amount of Rs.2.20 lakhs to the complainant and has restricted its award to Rs 1.5 Lakh. The order passed by the State Commission, therefore, does not all for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the behest of the petitioner. The revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.