BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.637/2014 against  E.A.No.62/2013 in C.C.No.180/2010, District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist.

Between:

Gopi Solomon, S/o.Paul

Aged about 50 years, Occ:Business,

R/o.H.No.1-30-613, Shivanagar,

Thirumalghery, Secunderabad.                              … Appellant/

                                                                           Respondent/

                                                                           Opp.party

         And

M.Praveen, S/o.David ,

Aged about 32 years,

Occ: Central Government Employee,

R/o.H.No.2-19-50, Kalyanpuri Colony,

Uppal, Hyderabad.                                               …Respondent/

                                                                           Petitioner/

                                                                           Complainant

Counsel for the  Appellant           :    M/s.S.Bhooma Goud.

Counsel for the  Respondent   :  M/s.B.Amarender.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA, PRESIDENT 

         WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH  DAY OF APRIL,

                             TWO THOUSAND SIXTEEN.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        .

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N.Rao Nalla, President).

                                 ***

This  is  an appeal filed by the Respondent/opp.party    in E.A.62/2013 in C.C.No.180/2010 on the file of District Forum,  Ranga Reddy Dist.   The Dist.Forum by its Docket Order dt.1.9.2014 directed the respondent/opp.party in E.A.No.62/2013 to deposit the amount as directed by the appellate  authority in F.A.No.230/2013 on or before 29.9.2014.  Against the said order,  the respondent/opp.party in the said E.A. preferred this appeal.  

For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint. 

The  brief  case  of the complainant  as set out in the complaint is as follows:

The complainant herein is the absolute owner  of  house property bearing H.No.2-19-50  situated at Kalyanpuri Colony, Uppal, R.R.Dist. and he entered into  Construction Agreement  including material and labour expenses on 11.1.2010  with opp.party herein for building a house  in the ground floor + first  floor  and the opp.party  agreed  to construct the slab area @ Rs.700/- per sft.  i.e.  for an amount of Rs.16,34,000/-   and the complainant paid  an advance amount of Rs.12,80,000/-  to the opp.party.   As per the said Construction Agreement, the opp.party has to complete the construction of house within 5 months from the date of agreement.  But he  failed to complete the  construction  of house as agreed. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum to direct the opp.party  to pay an amount of Rs.4 lakhs towards damages for mental agony besides financial loss, to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-, and to award Rs.10,000/- towards  costs of  the complaint

The opp.party  filed counter before the District Forum denying all the allegations made in the complaint  and contending that  the complainant  paid the amount for material and construction of ground and first floor only and the  complainant has got no right to claim anything from the opp.party and  instead   he is liable to pay Rs.5 lakhs   for material and labour charges of the 2^nd floor which  was incurred by the opp.party from his personal account. Therefore,  the opp.party prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

The District Forum  partly allowed the complaint directing the opp.party to pay  Rs.2,92,500/-  to the complainant and  also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-   towards compensation. 

Aggrieved by the said order the opp.party preferred F.A.No.230/2013  before this Commission. The said appeal was allowed  partly setting aside the relief for compensation of Rs.10,000/- while confirming  rest of the order.   The complainant filed E.A.no.62/2013 before the Dist. Forum to  punish the opp.party for non compliance of the order of the  District Forum in C.C.No.180/2010.  The Dist.Forum by  its  docket order dt.1.9.2014 in the said E.A.62/2013 directed the opp.party to deposit the amount as directed by the appellate authority in F.A.No.230/2013 on or before the 29.9.2014.   The opp.party filed the present appeal praying to set aside  the said order  dt.1.9.2014 in  E.A.No.62/2013.

 Today  there is no representation for the appellant/respondent/ opp.party. Counsel for the respondent/petitioner/complainant  is  present.  In view of the docket order dt.7.4.2016,  the appeal was posted  to this day under the caption for ‘Dismissal’.  Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the appellant/respondent/ opp.party. As such, there is no other go, for this Commission, except to dismiss the appeal for default.

  In the result, this appeal is accordingly dismissed for default.    

PRESIDENT

                                                                                Dt.20.4.2016