Ramavatar Sahu vs Naresh Kumar Sahu

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. FA/2017/784 dated 12.01.2018.

In this Complaint case, the Petitioner/Complainant stated that he entered into an Agreement with the Respondent/Opposite Party on 29.01.2016 for the construction of a building on 570 sq. ft. on his wife's land on the main road in village Manki.Construction of the building was contracted at a total cost of Rs.3,93,300/-, @ Rs.690/- per square feet.As per the Agreement, four shops in front and three rooms behind were to be constructed. The Petitioner paid Rs.4,19,300/- to the Respondent by cash and cheques on different dates.He paid Rs.26,000/- more than the agreed amount.The Petitioner paid Rs.11,250/- for bricks, Rs.6,500/- for iron rod and Rs.400/- cash to the Respondent. The Respondent did not complete the construction of the house within three months as per the Agreement and had only completed the structure. The Petitioner made several requests and sent a legal notice by Registered Post on 31.05.2016 to complete the construction work as soon as possible.Though the Respondent received the same, there was no response. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

The Complaint was contested by the Respondent by filing Written Statement in which it was contended that the house was given on contract to be constructed at the rate of Rs.690/- per square feet. The Respondent signed a document on 29.11.2016 which the Petitioner filled later.The Respondent was not aware of its contents and was never given a copy of the same.The Respondent was paid a total of Rs.3,32,000/- only. According to the Respondent, he had constructed 1,000.16 sq. ft. according to the contract, amounting to Rs.6,90,110/-, at the rate of Rs.690/- per square feet. The remaining amount of Rs.3,58,110/- was due from the Petitioner. The Respondent sought payment of balance amount, but the Petitioner did not pay the balance amount. The Respondent also sent a registered legal notice dated 25.06.2016 regarding payment of the balance. The Complaint was submitted on untrue and fabricated grounds by the Petitioner and was liable to be dismissed. The Respondent was not at all careless in discharging his duties, and the Petitioner had to pay him the amount due. In such a situation, there was no question of further execution of construction work. If there was any damage to the Petitioner, then he himself was responsible for it.

The District Forum, vide order dated 30.08.2017, dismissed the complaint on the ground that the Petitioner failed to prove his Complaint. It was clear from the available records that the house had been constructed by the Respondent as per the Agreement and the liability of installing the doors and windows in the house was of the Petitioner. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 12.01.2018, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission on the following grounds:-

The Order passed by the State Commission was bad in law and liable to be set-aside.

The State Commission had not gone through the documents and affidavits filed by the Petitioner and passed the order which was against law.

The State Commission overlooked the important fact that undisputedly the Petitioner paid an amount of Rs.4,19,300/- and the Respondent had not done the work as per the Agreement.From the perusal of photographs filed, it was clear that work was not done by the Respondent. But the State Commission overlooked the said fact and passed an illegal order which deserved to be set-aside.

The State Commission erred by overlooking the fact that the Respondent was denyingthe Agreement on one hand while stating that he had to take more amount as per the Agreement. The observation given by the State Commission on this point is not as per law and deserves to be set-aside.

The State Commission failed to consider an important fact that as per the Agreement, total construction was to be done on 608.5 sq.ft. and when the Petitioner measured the slab, it was only 570 sq. ft. The Respondent falsely stated that construction was to be done in 1000.16 sq. ft. The Petitioner has filed documents by which it was clear that the Respondent had not completed the construction work and even after that the State Commission had given the observation against the Petitioner.The order passed by the State Commission was not as per law and deserved to be set-aside.

The Petitioner paid more amount than was required to be paid and even after that the work was not completed.

The Respondent left the work in the middle and had not completed the work. The Petitioner filed a report of Shekar Sahu, Consultant Engineer which made it clear that construction work was not completed.

The Petitioner prayed before the State Commission to carry out inspection of the house, but it failed to consider the same.

The Petitioner purchased doors and windows and it was the duty of the Respondent to fix them and the observation given by the Fora below on this aspect was not as per law and deserved to be set-aside.

The State Commission overlooked an important fact that the Petitioner had given intimation to the police that he fixed the doors and windows in the unfinished rooms at his own expenses, because unauthorized persons were entering the house. This fact was brought to the knowledge of the State Commission but it dismissed the Appeal on wrong grounds.

The State Commission overlooked evidence placed before them and passed the order merely on the basis of presumption.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the record.

An agreement was entered with the Respondent for construction of building of 570 sq. ft. on the Petitioner's wife's land situated in village Manki.Contract was given at a total cost of Rs.3,93,300/-.On various dates the Petitioner paid a total of Rs.4,19,300/- to the Respondent, whereas the contracted amount was Rs.3,93,000/-.The Petitioner paid Rs.26,000/- in excess to the Respondent.The Respondent/Opposite Party did not complete the construction of the house within three months as per the agreement.Only the structure of the building had been constructed by the Respondent/Opposite Party.Due to the non-completion of the construction work on time, the Petitioner suffered financial loss and mental harassment.

The Respondent/Opposite Party in his written statement had taken the defence that:-

"The Complainant on various dates for the said construction has only paid in total rs.3,32,000/- whereas as per the decided contract by the Opposite Party construction work on 1000.16 sq. ft. according to which at the rate of Rs.690/- sq. ft. in total of Rs.6,90,110/- worth of construction work has been completed. In this way according to the decided contract the Opposite Party is to receive Rs.3,58,110/- balance amount from the complainant till the construction work done by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party on several occasions requested the complainant for the payment of the said amount but the Complainant till date has not paid the above mentioned balance amount for the construction work done by the opposite party. "

It is clear from the foregoing evidence in the case that the Respondent had taken on contract, construction of the house on the Petitioner's wife's land.The liability of installing the doors and windows in the said house rested with the Petitioner.There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.

The orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Forumare well-reasoned and from the available record and evidence placed, it is clear that the Petitioner failed to prove his Complaint.

In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is dismissed and the orders passed by the Foras below are confirmed.