R. JAWAHAR vs V. SOMASUNDARAM

FOR the reasons set out in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 41 days is condoned.

WE have heard the Counsel for the appellant on merits. The main contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner''s report fully supports him so far as the contention of the complainant is concerned that instead of plinth area of 820 sq. ft., he has actually constructed only 600 sq. ft. plinth area. The Commissioner found the area to be 8925 sq. ft. On most of the items the findings of the Commissioner are in favour of the appellant. However, some minor jobs were left such as putting aluminum foils in holes of doors/windows, bushes for main door/hall windows, stair case railing, latch door to door outside painting, fixing up of wash basin mirror and mirror light and the soap/paste and brush stand, etc. State Commission noted that apart from these, other works remained incomplete were weather course and rain water drain pipes. The State Commission has rightly observed that the complainant has not set out these incomplete works in the complaint nor has given any cost of carrying out these works. He has not even asked Commissioner to verify these items and assess cost of carrying out these works. Counsel for the respondent/complainant conceded that these incomplete works have since been carried out. But he is unable to give us the cost on which these minor jobs were attended to. In the face of such facts, it was not proper for the State Commission to award a sum of Rs. 50,000. To this amount the State Commission had further added Rs. 1,800 which the opposite party had to pay for three-phase electricity connection, which was not provided and out of total of Rs. 51,800 (Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 1,800) a sum of Rs. 9,500 which was due to the appellant for the extra jobs done in the premises was deducted leaving the balance of Rs. 42,300.

We are unable to appreciate this way of ad hoc assessment of the jobs are not available on record nor has respondent taken care to lead any evidence. This part of the claim should have failed for want of evidence. We, therefore, set aside the award of Rs. 50,000 being awarded without any evidence on record. However, since some inconvenience has been caused to the respondent for having certain works done, the complainant should be awarded a total sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation plus Rs. 1,800 which the appellant had to pay to the complainant totalling Rs. 11,800 minus a sum of Rs. 9,500 leaving the balance of only Rs. 2,300 plus the award of cost as has been granted by the State Commission. Final analysis is that the award of relief No. 1 is deleted, relief No. 2 is enhanced to Rs. 10,000 plus Rs. 1,800 minus Rs. 9,500 leaving the balance of Rs. 2,300 and relief No. 3 is upheld. Let these payments be made within one month. First appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.