West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/197/2016

M/s. Lodge Green Palace - Complainant(s)

Versus

Apaar Infratech Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.197/2016

 

M/s. Lodge Green Place, Proprietor : Parimal Roy,

Station Road, Midnapore  

P.S.-Kotwali, Dist-Paschim Medinipur.….………Complainant

Versus

1. APAAR Infratech Pvt. Ltd., 712, Jogendra Gardens,                                         P.O.-Kasba, Kolkata-700078
2. M/s. APAAR Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Reg. Office at U-10/20, DLF Phase-II,   

      Gurgaon-122002……………….Ops.

 

For the Complainant:  Mr. Partha Dey, Advocate.

For the O.P.             :                     

                                                                    Decided on: -26/07/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant M/s. Lodge Green Place, Proprietor : Parimal Roy alleging deficiency in service on the part of the above mentioned O.Ps.

Contd………..P/2

                                                                                                                              

                                                                               ( 2 )

                   The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant entered into an agreement on 08/02/2016 with the O.Ps. for water proofing and structural durability in the basement of a lodge namely Green Place owned by him at an  estimated consideration  of Rs.2,95,133/- . It is stated by the complainant according to the agreement the said construction would be reconstructed  by the O.P.  without charging any cost if  there is any defect of the work. It is further stated by the complainant that after completion of work rain water came through the wall and basement has submerged with knee deep water. The complainant informed the O.Ps.  about the said matter through e-mail on 23/07/2016 and 19/09/2016 and over  telephone. The complainant specifically stated that inspite  of conversation over telephone the O.Ps. did not take any initiative to remove the aforesaid defects even receiving advocate notice dated  04/11/2016  issued from the ends of the complainant  which constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards cost damages, losses etc. and to pay reliefs.

                Notice was duly served upon O.P. no.2 but he did not turn up  so the instant case has been fixed for ex-parte proceeding vide order no.4 dated 08/02/2017.

              In support of his evidence the complainant produced himself  as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2. During their evidence some documents are marked as exhibit 1 to 8 respectively and 9 and 10 respectively.                      

        

Decisions with reasons.

                             The complainant has claimed to have been entered into an agreement with the O.P. in order to prevent leakage and percolation of water in the basement by  enhancing structural durability of the construction of  a building namely Green Palace Lodge owned by the complainant at station road, Midnapore at an agreed consideration of Rs.2,95,133/-. The complainant has alleged that he  found the work done by the O.Ps. were defective and  inspite of repeated communication the O.Ps.  failed to take any steps to remove the defect.  It is stated by the complainant that the said  defect compelled him to incur loss of  Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages and accordingly has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps.  to pay Rs.20,00,000/- towards  damages.

                          According to OXFORD DICTIONARY OF LAW damages mean a sum of money awarded by a Court as compensation for a tort or a breach of contract.  

                         It is, therefore, evident that the complainant has prayed for Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation. It is also evident that the value of service was Rs.2,95,133/-.

Contd………..P/3

                                              

                                                                    ( 3 )

 

                           Section II(1) of C.P. Act 1986 states Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the  goods or  services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs.

                       In the instant case the total amount of value of service plus amount  for compensation (Rs.2,95,133/- + Rs.20,00,000/- = Rs.22,95,133/-) exceed the pecuniary limit of this Forum. Hence the  instant case is not maintainable before this Forum.

                        In the result the complaint case does not succeed.

                            Hence, it is,

                                                   ORDERED

                                                   that consumer complaint case being no.197/2016 is dismissed ex-parte without cost since Forum does not have the pecuniary  jurisdiction to entertain the same.       

           Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                           Sd/- S. Sarkar                        Sd/- P.K. Singha                               Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                                  Member                                Member                                            President

                                                                                                                                      District Forum

                                                                                                                                  Paschim Medinipur