STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

(Appeal No.205 of 2015)

(Against the order dated 07.07.2015 in Complaint case no. 26 of 2011 passed by  District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj.)

Parshuram Sah,

S/O- Gopalji Sah,

R/O- Village – Bhagawatipur,

P.S- Barauli, District-  Gopalganj                                                          Appellant.  

VERSUS

 Jaglal Mistry ,

S/O- Late Phulena Pandit,

R/O-  Village- Piprahiya

P.S.- Barauli, District- Goplaganj.                                                          Respondent.            

BEFORE,

                                    Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K.Sinha, President,

                        Hon’ble Sri Upendra Jha, ADM(Rtd),  member(M)

                        Hon’ble Smt. Renu Sinha, member (F)

ORDER

27.04.2017

S.K. Sinha, President.

                       The impugned order dismissing the complainant alleging deficiency in service in constructing his house claiming the compensation and the losses is under challenge. 

 2.                    The  complainant alleged that for construction of his house the opposite party was engaged with an agreement  to pay a sum of Rs. 64,000/- as labour  charges. The building material  was  to be provided by the complainant.  It is alleged that  the construction  was   patently defective. A sum of   Rs. 53,000 was paid to  the opposite party (Raj mistry) who denied  the allegations.  It was relied   that the case is filed  to avoid the balance payment as also the costs towards centering  material. Which comes  to more than Rs. 1,10,000/- since complainant detailed kept the material.  Complainant  adduced his  own  evidence and of two other  witnesses who were either find or relative of the complainant.  Opposite party also adduced evidences of some other Raj Mistry. An advocate  commissioner  was appointed to submit  the report  about the construction  who supported the  complainant  case.  The  District Forum having found that evidence of the  witnesses could  not be accepted  since they have no competency no evidence  was available with respect  the quality  of material  like  cement etc. The district forum accordingly having found that allegations of the complainant could not be established  as such dismissed the case.

3.        The appellant filed written notes of Argument in support  of his case. The Respondent filed counter affidavit  in support of his case.     

4.         We have considered the case of the parties and also their impugned order. The District Forum upon considering the evidence on the record  having found that there is no evidence with respect the quality  of the materials  supplied  by the complainant  an important  factor regarding the allegation of  defective construction. The witness for having no expiration on the subject matter could not be accepted.  

5.         In view of evidence on the record the impugned order cannot be faulted.    

6.        In the result appeal stands dismissed.

  Renu Sinha                            Upendra Jha                            S.K. Sinha

Member(F)                              Member(M)                              President          

        Mukund