Karnataka

Kolar

CC/42/2020

Sri.Anjan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.P.Narayanaswamy - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.G.R.RamaChandra Murthy

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

                          Date of Filing: 17.11.2020

Date of Disposal: 30.09.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

PRESENT

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI,B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 42 OF 2020

Sri. Anjan Kumar,

S/o. P.S. Srinivasa Rao,

Aged About 35 Years,

Behind Vivekananda School,

Kolar Road, Malur Town,

PIN – 563 130.                                                                       

(Rep. by Sri. G.R. Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate)          ….  COMPLAINANT.

- V/s –

M.P. Narayanaswamy,

S/o. Late Papanna,

Aged About 53 Years,

Contractor/Civil Engineer,

Chikkamarikamba Temple,

Tank Road, Malur Town,

Kolar District.

And also at: Chaithanya Enterprises,

(Chaithanya Cement Shop),

1^st Floor, Malur-Hosur Main Road,

Malur Town, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.K.A.Khan & Naveen Kumar, Advocates)      …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

ORDER

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite party alleging deficiency in-service and hence  prays this commission to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.51,98,665/- towards compensation for the loss suffered  and  to grant such other relief with cost of the proceedings.

02.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant is the absolute owner of the complaint schedule property bearing residential site municipal New No. 1029/944, situated at Agrahara Beedhi, Malur Town, Kolar District.  It is stated that, in the above said site property the complainant intended to construct residential building and thereby he constructed ground floor, first floor and the second floor constructed up to lintel level.  For the above construction complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.16,50,000/-. Thereafter complainant approached the OP contractor for further construction of the proposed residential building consisting of 05 floors.  Hence it is stated that complainant and OP were entered in to construction agreement dated: 23.10.2017 and agreed to complete the construction work for Rs.48,00,000/- as per the specifications mentioned in the construction agreement.  It is stated that in pursuant to the said construction agreement the complainant paid a sum of Rs.37,50,000/- to the OP.  The OP was required to complete the construction in terms of the construction agreement and handover the key to the complainant on 01.04.2018. It is stated that OP had not discharged his contractual obligation of completing the construction work entrusted to him in terms of construction agreement. Further alleged that, despite request made by the complainant the OP acted contrary to the agreement.  Hence it is stated that, there was a Panchayath held in the month of August 2019 in view of stoppage of construction in the middle without any lawful justification. It is stated that in the said Panchayath the OP had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant and thereby OP paid only Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment as agreed under the settlement and thereafter OP failed to pay the balance amount.  Further stated that due to the incomplete construction work the under constructed building was exposed to rain and sun for more than 10 months.  Hence alleged that the complainant had suffered pecuniary loss everyday besides mental suffering and anxiety on account of stoppage of construction work even after receiving Rs.37,50,000/-.  Further stated that the OP had not resumed the construction work at all after the settlement was reached on 26.08.2019 with an assurance of payment of Rs.9,50,000/-. Further in order to complete the construction work the complainant got the help of a civil engineer to assess the construction work carried-out by the OP and the remaining work to be carried out by him in terms of construction agreement and to issue certificate.   That the competent Civil Engineer had inspected the schedule property and after examination he had issued certificate that, the OP had carried-out 40% of the work and remaining 60% had to be completed.  It is stated that the work done by the OP contractor to an extent of 40% and the cost of 40% comes to Rs.19,14,720/- and the remaining work to an extent of 60% and it comes to Rs.18,35,280/-.  It is alleged that if the OP had completed the construction work in time the complainant would have got rental income from the building every month from April-2018 and hence stated that he had suffered loss since then.  It is stated that complainant suffered mental tension and anxiety, hence he is claiming compensation Rs.30,00,000/-.  It is stated further that the complainant got issued legal notice to the OP demanding to pay Rs.48,35,237/- towards the loss suffered and thereon OP had given untenable reply.  It is stated that on account of failure of the OP to complete the agreed construction work the complainant himself took up the balance construction work and completed the same.  Ultimately that the complainant stated that, he had suffered loss on the account of deficiency of work on the part of the OP and hence this complaint. 

03.   On issuance of notice the OP appeared through his counsel and filed his version.

04.   In the version of OP it is admitted that the complainant is the absolute owner of the complaint schedule property, however it is denied that, the complainant had constructed residential building consisting of ground floor, first floor and the second floor up to the lintel level by spending Rs.16,50,000/-.  It is also denied that the complainant and the OP were entered into construction agreement on 23.10.2017 and agreed to complete the construction work for Rs.48,00,000/- and agreed for terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement.  Further the averments made in the complaint that the Op had received Rs.37,50,000/- from the complainant and was agreed to complete the construction work in terms of the agreement and to agreed to handover the key to the complainant on or before 01.04.2018 and acted contrary to the construction agreement and all these averments denied as false and incorrect.  Further the averments made by OP that, in view of stoppage of construction work in the middle, during August 2019 without any lawful justification and hence Op agreed in a meeting to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant are all denied as false and incorrect.  However OP admitted that, there was a Panchayath held and in the said Panchayath he had paid Rs.3,00,000/- as per the Panchayath settlement.  Further OP denied that without justifiable cause the OP had stopped the construction work by receiving Rs.37,50,000/- and also denied that, the building was exposed to rain and sun for more than 10 months and thereon the complainant has suffered pecuniary loss.  Further it is also denied that, the complainant got appointed a civil engineer to inspect the unfinished building in order to ascertain the work done by the Op and the remaining unfinished work and to issue certificate to that effect.  It is also denied that, the OP had completed 40% of the work and it comes to Rs.19,14,0720/- and balance work is remained to an extent of Rs.18,35,280/-.  However the OP admitted that, the issuance of legal notice by the complainant and replay notice.  It is also denied that the complainant himself took up the balance construction work on his own and completed the same and thereby complainant had suffered deficiency of work by the OP.  Hence contended that, the claim of the complainant is false and imaginary.

04(a).  Further the OP has specifically contented that, he has completed the construction work like ground floor by demolition and removing of three floor inner walls and shifted outside.  Further reconstructed the walls by keeping the new doors and window frames, plastering of inner walls and completed all the 04 floors, 09 columns raised up to 37 feet for top 03 floors and accordingly beams were provided.  Further contended that tiles laid in two floors, molding works completed in 03 floors, lintel work completed in 4 floors, in the 5^th floor after raising the column up to 07 feet walls constructed 03 feet height, for the above constructed work Op incurred expenditure of Rs. 39.60 lakhs.  Further contended that there were several Panchayath held between the complainant and Op but the complainant refused the decisions of the Panchayathdars and ultimately in the final Panchayath complainant was received Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and settle the matter.  It is alleged that after settling the matter that the complainant was demanding more money and by suppressing real and true facts filed this complaint approached this commission with unclean hands. Further contended that, the OP completed 80% of the construction work as agreed and incurred expenditure more than the amount received from the complainant.  It is contended that the complainant was at default in payments as per the agreed terms and hence it is not possible for the Op to complete the remaining 20% of the work.  Hence contended that in the Panchayath as per the advice of the well wishers Op was constrained and paid Rs.3,00,000/- under the settlement. It is contended that after settlement and receiving the Rs.3,00,000/- under settlement and filed this complainant demanding more money and approached this commission by suppressing the true facts with unclean hands. Further the Op contended that complainant constructed building for commercial purpose. On the above said grounds Op prays to dismiss the complaint.

05.   On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration:-

(1) Whether the complainant proves that, he is a Consumer and the complaint comes under the domain of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?

 

2) Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP for not completing the construction work as agreed in the construction agreement dated: 23.10.2017?

 

3)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought for in the complaint?

4)  What Order?

06.   Heard the arguments and perused the evidence placed on record.

07.   Our answers to the above points are as under:-

Point No: 1:-   Is in the Affirmative

Point No: 2:-   Is in the Affirmative

Point No: 3:-   Is partly in the Affirmative

Point No: 4:-   As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

08. POINT No.(1):- On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that, the complainant in the complaint schedule property intends to construct the proposed building and thereby approached the OP for construction work.  On perusal of the construction undertaking agreement it discloses that, the OP had agreed to complete the construction work as per the specifications given in the construction agreement dated: 23.10.2017 for Rs.48,00,000/-.

 

09.   It is not in dispute that, on perusal of the IA No.4 dated: 26.03.2021 filed by the OP it reveals that, the OP has contended that, the dispute will not come under the domain of this Commission as dispute involves breach of contract and hence contended that, the complainant ought to have initiated the proceedings before the Civil Court.  However this Commission by its order dated: 27.04.2021 pleased to dismiss the IA No.4 with cost holding that, this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. On perusal of the records and on submission of the parties that the OP did not challenge the question of jurisdiction in revision before the Appellate Commission and hence the orders passed on IA No.4 is attained finality.  It is worth to mention that, as per the definition of the “Service” defined Under Section 02(42) it reads thus:-

“Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding are lodging or both, Housing Construction, entertainment, amusement or previewing of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any free of charge or under contract of personal service.” 

In the light of above definition we have no hesitation to hold that, housing construction comes under the domain of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

10.   Further it is noteworthy to mention that, though the complainant himself stated in his pleadings at Para-5 of the complaint that, “if the respondent had completed the construction work entrusted to him in terms of the agreement on or before 01.04.2018 the complainant would have got rental income from the building every month.”  That the OP by taking advantage of the above pleadings contended that, the complainant has constructed the building for commercial purpose.  That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmi Engineering works –Vs- PSG Industrial Institute held that, Commercial denotes pertaining to commerce, it means connectedly or engaged in commerce, mercantile having profit as the financial transaction especially buying and selling of merchandise, on a large scale.  However no cogent evidence is placed on record to show that, the proposed construction of the building is only and purely for the commercial purpose.  In the absence of the cogent evidence mere saying of getting rental income will not establish that, the complainant is not a Consumer.  Further in conclusion on relaying of the orders passed by our predecessor on IA No.4 and as well as on foregoing reasons we reach to the conclusion that, the complainant is a Consumer accordingly we answered Point No.1 is in the Affirmative.

11.   POINT NOs.2 & (3):-        These points are interlinked to each other and hence taken up together for common discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts.

12.   On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant approached the OP contractor for constructing a residential building consisting of 05 floors.  It is also not in dispute that, both complainant and OP were entered in to Construction Agreement dated: 23.10.2017.  Further it is also not in dispute that, the OP has agreed in terms of the construction agreement to finish the construction of work for a consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- and OP had received Rs.37,50,000/- from the complainant.  It is also not in dispute that, due to the differences between the complainant and the OP, the OP could not complete the entire work.  It is also not in dispute that, due to the differences between the parties there were several Panchayaths were held and ultimately OP obliged in the Panchayath and paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is that, the OP for no reasons in the middle all of a sudden stopped the construction work and hence he suffered mental tension and thereby Panchayath was held to settle the differences in the month of August-2019.  Further the complainant states that, in the said Panchayath OP agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- for unfinished work and paid only Rs.3,00,000/-.  The complainant also appointed a Civil Engineer in order to inspect the proposed construction building to ascertain that, what was the work done by the OP Contractor and the expenditure incurred thereon and also to ascertain how much amount required towards unfinished construction work.  Further complainant deposed that, as per the Engineer Report OP had completed only 40% of the work and on calculation it comes to Rs.19,14,720/- and remaining 60% of the work was pending at the time of stoppage of the work and it comes to Rs.18,35,280/- hence the complainant alleged that, though OP had agreed to deliver the completely constructed building on or before 01.04.2018, but OP stopped the construction work in the middle and hence the complainant suffered financial loss and if the OP had completed the construction of the building well in time the complainant may fetch monthly rental income from the newly constructed building and hence alleged that, OP caused deficiency in service. 

13.   Per contra, the OP has specifically contented that, he has completed the construction work like ground floor by demolition and removing of three floor inner walls and shifted outside.  Further reconstructed the walls by keeping the new doors and window frames, plastering of inner walls and completed all the 04 floors, 09 columns raised up to 37 feet for top 03 floors and accordingly beams were provided.  Further contended that, tiles laid in two floors, molding works completed in 03 floors, lintel work completed in 04 floors, in the 05^th floor after raising the Column up to 07 feet walls were constructed up to 03 feet height, for the above constructed works OP had incurred expenditure of Rs. 39.60 lakhs.

14.   In order to substantiate the case of the parties both parties have filed their affidavit evidences along with supporting documents.  On perusal of the affidavit evidence both parties have retreated the facts averred in the complaint and in the version. 

15.   It is worth to note that, only on the basis of the affidavit evidence of the complainant, it is not possible for us to ascertain whether the OP completed only 40% of the work or as per saying of OP whether he completed 80% of the work. On perusal of the evidence of CW-3 - Civil Engineer along with the documents as Annexure - 21 to 23 and in the evidence, it is deposed that, the OP has done the construction work to extent of Rs.15,84,200/ only.  Per contra, on perusal of the cross-examination of CW-3 wherein the witness deposed that, he has not produced any document to show that, he is the PWD contractor.  Further deposed that, he is giving only planning and not have constructed any house so far and he did drain works given by the PWD department.  It is clear from the cross-examination the witness of the complainant never did the work of construction of the house as admitted in the cross-examination and hence it is not wise enough to relay on the report given by such evidence as opinion should be based on experience and hence the evidence of the said witness lack of experience and the same  will not helpful to the case of the complainant. Further in order to prove the case of the complainant and the complainant himself by filing IA No.VI for appointment of PWD engineer as Court Commissioner and accordingly court commissioner was appointed and submitted the Commissioner Report.  However the complainant filed objections to the commissioner report and cross-examined the court commissioner.  On perusal of the commissioner report it reveals that, in order to complete the entire building work he has given estimate cost of Rs.68,00,000/- and for already completed work to an extent of Rs.31,00,000/- and Rs.37.50 lakhs is given towards estimate for unfinished work.  From the report of the Commissioner it clearly reveals that, the OP completed the work to an extent of Rs.31,00,000/- out of receiving the amount of Rs.37,50,000/-.  However complainant with the dis-satisfaction of the commissioner report and thereon filed his objections contending that, court commissioner was directed to give opinion with respect to pending work and as well as prayed in IA No.VI.  On perusal of the commissioner report who revealed in his report that, pending work to an extent of Rs.37,50,000/- and thereby no doubt the report of the commissioner complied the direction of this Commission.  Furthermore on perusal of the IA No.VI that the complainant specifically stated in the IA No.VI whether the building is completed or not, there is any pending work or to what extent pending work is there and estimate of the amount and draw report with photograph.  On perusal of the Commissioner Report along with the photographs it reveals that, all the above grievances of the complainant are answered.  Hence in our opinion, there is no warranted circumstance to disbelieve the report of the Commissioner.  It is worth to note that, for the reasons best known to the parties, both the parties failed to file the Memo of Instructions after appointment of Commissioner.  Hence the parties are estopped for raising queries on discharging of the commissioner work, but in our view Commissioner obliged to file his report in accordance with the prayer made in IA No.VI and hence we have no hesitation to accept the commissioner report. 

16.   That the counsel for complainant cross-examined the Court Commissioner at length and elicited what are all the pending works.  It is worth to note that, though there was no Memo of instructions to go through the conditions of the agreement and hence there is nothing to do with the agreement, when the Court Commissioner given clear picture about the finished and unfinished work in his report.  Further the Executive Engineer had appointed the Assistant Executive Engineer for the Commissioner work and hence there is no legal infirmity found and hence the allegations of the complainant regarding Commissioner Work holds no water.  It is also clearly specified in the cross-examination that, when the Court Commissioner had visited the spot already 05 floors building was constructed and only the civil work is pending.  Further counsel for the complainant elicited in the cross-examination that, the Commissioner has taken the signatures of the parties to the Mahazar drawn by them on 1^st day, but not taken the signature in the final Mahazar since the work is done in presence of the parties by taking their due instructions and hence we cannot find any fault in it.

17.   Further on perusal of cross-examination done by the OP it is not much help full to substantiate his case.  The crux of the matter is to consider that, whether there is deficiency in service for leaving the agreed contract of construction work?  On perusal of the construction undertaking agreement dated: 23.10.2017 it discloses that, the OP undertakes to complete the construction work for Rs.48,00,000/- and handover the key to the complainant on 01.04.2018.  Further on perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is also not in dispute that, the differences between the complainant OP and the work was stopped and thereon Panchayath was held.  In pursuance of the Panchayath that the OP paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant, whereas complainant deposed that, the OP had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant for settling the dispute and accordingly paid only Rs.3,00,000/-.  Per contra the OP has contended that, he had agreed only for Rs.3,00,000/- and accordingly he paid the amount and hence contended that, there is no deficiency in service on his part, but the complainant approached this Commission with unclean hands.  In order to shift the grain from the chaff on perusal of the Commissioner’s evidence it discloses that, OP had already completed the construction work worth of Rs.31,00,000/-.  Whereas in the evidence of complainant and in his pleadings it is alleged that, as per the report of the Civil Engineer OP completed only 40% of the agreed work and on calculation it comes to Rs.19,14,720/- and the balance amount remains with the OP is Rs.18,35,280/-.  When compared to report of the Commissioner.

18.   Further on perusal of the evidence placed on record it is not in dispute that, due to differences between the complainant and the OP, whereas the OP had stopped the construction work and thereon Panchayath was held in the month of August 2019 and in the Panchayath decision and accordingly the OP paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant to settle the matter.  Hence the OP canvassed that, once the matter is settled and received the amount the contract of construction agreement came to an end and hence there is no privity of contract exists between the parties and the complainant estopped from claiming.  Further on perusal of Para-2 of the complaint averments “A Panchayath was held in the month of August 2019 in view of the stoppage of construction in the middle without any lawful justification.  In the said meeting the respondent had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant and issued a cheque dated: 26.08.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the amount agreed under the settlement.  Thereafter he failed to pay the balance amount.”  However to substantiate the case of the complainant that the OP agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant, but there is no evidence placed on record or either the complainant nor the OP examined any witness regarding Panchayath, somehow receiving of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP cannot be disbelieved as the evidence placed on record and so also clear admission by the complainant.  Further we rely on the evidence of the Court Commissioner and in his report it is clearly revealed that, the OP had completed the construction work worth of Rs.31,00,000/- and it is not in dispute as per the evidence placed on record that, the OP received Rs.37,50,000/- from the complainant out of the fixed consideration rate of Rs.48,00,000/- as per Annexure-1 i.e., Construction agreement.  It is worth to note that, as per the saying of the complainant when the Panchayath was held and OP agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- towards full and final settlement, but the OP only paid Rs.3,00,000/- and remaining Rs.6,50,000/- not paid to the complainant, whereas, as per the Commissioner evidence complainant had completed construction work worth of Rs.31,00,000/- and hence OP has to pay Rs.6,50,000/- and hence the saying of the complainant that, the OP had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- for settlement of the dispute and paid only Rs.3,00,000/- and as per the Commissioner evidence OP completed the construction work worth of Rs.31,00,000/- and balance comes to Rs.6,50,000/- and hence there is a clear corroboration to draw our inference that, the Panchayath was held and the OP agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- towards the unfinished work to the complainant in order to settle the dispute.  Hence the contention of the OP that, in the said Panchayath he agreed to pay only Rs.3,00,000/- to settle the dispute cannot be accepted.  However the OP had already paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant in pursuance of the said Panchayath and the OP has to pay remaining balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant as per the decision of the Panchayath, but for the reasons best known to the OP he has not paid the same to honour the Panchayath’s decision and it leads to filing of this complaint. That the OP failed to file any cogent evidence to show that his bonafide attempt why he has not paid remaining balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant as per the Panchayath’s decision and thereon for non-paying the amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant well in time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 

19.   It is noteworthy to mention here that, while discussing Point Nos.1 & 2 in detail, we reached to the conclusion that, the complainant and the OP were entered in to the construction agreement dated: 23.10.2017.  Further the complainant had entrusted the construction work for Rs.48,00,000/- to the OP – Contractor in order to finish the 05 floor building.  Further it is not in dispute that, due to the differences between the parties and the OP has stopped the construction work.  It is also not in dispute that, to sink the differences between the parties there was a Panchayath held in the month of August-2017 and in the said Panchayath the OP had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant for the unfinished work towards full and final settlement and the same is corroborated by the evidence of the Court Commissioner.  It is also not in dispute that, when the OP paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant the remaining balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was due by the OP to the complainant.  Once the complainant had received Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP as per the decision of the Panchayath he cannot turn round and demand for more compensation for any other grounds as per Section 115 of the Evidence Act which reads thus:-

“The principle of estoppal is a rule which prevents a person from taking up inconsistent position from what he has pleaded as asserted earlier”. 

On perusal of Para-2 of the complaint wherein which the complainant has clearly admitted that, “A Panchayath was held in the month of August 2019 in view of the stoppage of construction in the middle without any lawful justification.  In the said meeting the respondent had agreed to pay Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant and issued a cheque dated: 26.08.2019 for Rs.3,00,000/- towards part payment of the amount agreed under the settlement.  Thereafter he failed to pay the balance amount.”  Hence the complainant cannot turn round and demand for more compensation for any other reasons.  It is worth to mention here that, the Civil Courts or the Tribunals are always governed by the “Principle of equity” and who comes to Court should do equity and no one should be rich enough at the cost of other.  On applying the principle of equity we deem it just and proper that, the OP has to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- to the complainant and if the OP paid well in time and that if the complainant had invested the money in any nationalized bank and the said balance amount will obviously earn interest.  Under the circumstances, we direct the OP – Contractor to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization of the amount and it will meets the ends of justice.  Further due to unnecessary stoppage of the work in the middle and thereon Panchayath was held and the complainant suffered some mental agony and made the complainant to approach this Commission and hence the complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Accordingly we answered Point No.2 is in the Affirmative and Point No.3 is Partly Affirmative. 

POINT No.(4):-

20.   On the basis of the reasons assigned while answering Point Nos. (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed-in-part.

 

02.   The OP is directed to pay to the complainant the balance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization of the amount.

03.   The OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the him and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

 

04.   The OP is directed to comply the above orders at Sl. Nos.2 to 3 within 30 day from the date of this order and shall furnish the compliance report to this Commission.

 

05.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022.

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT