Rajaram Sahu vs Devendra Kumar Raghuvanshi

V.K. Jain, J

The case of the complainant / respondent is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with him to construct a house for him, with material, for a consideration of Rs.15,09,000/-. This is also his case that despite he having paid Rs.8.00 lacs to the petitioner, the work was abandoned, after the petitioner had worked for a few days. It is also alleged by him that even the incomplete work executed by the petitioner was sub-standard and defective. The complainant therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking refund of the amount paid by him to the petitioner, along with compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, who inter-alia denied the case set up by the complainant, including the receipt of Rs.8.00 lacs from him.

The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint and having directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.8.00 lacs received from the complainant along with compensation quantified at Rs.2.00 lacs, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission while upholding the direction for refund of Rs.8.00 lacs, reduced the compensation from Rs.2.00 lacs to Rs.50,000/-. Being still aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The petitioner has not denied his purported signature on the handwritten agreement filed by the complainant. No such plea was taken by him in his reply.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the document relied upon by the complainant as the agreement between the parties and pointed out that as per the said document, the entire house was to be constructed for a total consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- and therefore, there could be no question of the complainant paying a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs to the petitioner. The above argument implies that though the petitioner had agreed to construct a house for the complainant the said house was to be constructed for a consideration of Rs.1,59,000/- and not for a consideration of Rs.15,09,000/-. However, a careful perusal of a written version filed by the petitioner before the District Forum would show that this was not his case before the District Forum though he had agreed to construct a house for the complainant, the consideration for the said construction was agreed at Rs.1,59,000/-. In his written version filed before the District Forum, the petitioner chose to altogether deny the agreement pleaded by the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the consideration for construction of the house was agreed at Rs.1,59,000/-. Even otherwise, it is not at all possible to construct a complete house comprising of two rooms, kitchen, hall, porch, two toilets, two bathrooms, gallery etc. etc. for a paltry amount of Rs.1,59,000/-. I therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the consideration for the construction of the house was agreed at Rs.15,09,000/-

The next question which arises for consideration is as to how much amount was paid by the complainant to the petitioner. As noted earlier, the case of the complainant is that he paid a sum of Rs.8.00 lacs to the petitioner, whereas the case of the petitioner is that no amount at all was received by him from the complainant. It has come in evidence that the part construction already exists at the property in question. A number of photographs were fled before the District Forum, showing the said incomplete construction. An inspection report dated 20.4.2015 prepared by a registered Architect was also filed by the complainant before the District Forum. An affidavit of the Architect was also filed by him in order to prove his report. The said part construction would not have been raised by the petitioner without receiving any payment from the complainant. The petitioner did not even make a request to the District Forum for permission to cross-examine the Architect engaged by the complainant. The execution of the incomplete work by the petitioner coupled with his having altogether denied the transaction between the parties and having received any amount whatsoever from the complainant, clearly shows that a false plea was taken by him to contest the consumer complaint. Therefore, I see no reason to disbelieve the payments pleaded by the complainant though he did not take any receipt from the complainant for the amount which he had paid on different dates.

A concurrent finding of fact has been returned by both the fora below holding that the petitioner had executed an agreement with the complainant, had received Rs.8.00 lacs from him and left the work incomplete. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed hereinabove, I find no justification to interfere with the aforesaid concurrent finding of fact in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

It is true that according to the complainant some work was executed by the petitioner. The said incomplete work would obviously have been executed at some cost. Had the incomplete work executed by the petitioner been upto the mark, he would have been entitled to reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him on the said incomplete work. But, the report of the Architect engaged by the complainant, which remained unrebutted on account of the petitioner having not cross-examined him and having not produced any Architect in rebuttal, shows that the part work executed by him was defective and needs to be demolished altogether. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reimbursement for the cost incurred by him on execution of the said incomplete work.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.