Judgment : Dt.13.10.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President.
This is a complaint made by one Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, son of Late Biswanath Banerjee, 47/K/2, Prasanta Roy Road, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-700 008 against Mr. Mintu Mondal, prop. Of S.R.Enterprise, Joka, Baruipara, P.S.-Thakurpukur, Kolkata-700 104, praying for a direction upon the O.P. to award compensation to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is resident of premises No.47/K/2, Prasanta Roy Road under Haridevpur P.S. Complainant decided to construct another floor upon his one storied building and approached OP who took over contract of the construction work. OP gave quotation on his pad on 12.2.2015. As per contract, it was decided that the OP shall construct ground floor staircase and first floor super structure at a cost of Rs.1,65,460/-. All the materials of construction shall be supplied by OP. A payment schedule was settled between them, as advance Rs.20,000/-, after roof construction Rs.50,000/-, after completion of plaster work Rs.20,000/- and after completion of parapet wall Rs.20,000/- and the balance amount shall be paid by the Complainant to the OP gradually on mutual understanding. Thereafter, it was decided that Complainant will not make any advance payment. OP started work on 22.2.2015, but, stopped it despite request and reminders. Again, OP started work and did just floor roof casting but did not complete the work as per contract. OP already took sum of Rs.1,29,000/- from the Complainant but not completed roof casting, brick works, plaster work and parapet wall. OP asked Complainant that another Rs.60,000/- is required as labour charges have increased. In addition, the delay in completion of work caused disease to the minor son and old mother of the Complainant. Despite such negligent and unfair act, Complainant requested the OP for completing the entire construction work as per Agreement, but of no use. Due to the act of OP, Complainant suffered loss of Rs.1,60,000/- and so Complainant filed this case. OP, Mintu Mondal filed written objection against the Complaint petition, OP has stated that the allegation of the Complainant is false as because there was no contract between him and Complainant. Further, OP has stated that Complainant contacted the OP for supplying labour needed for construction of the Complainants house. OP has admitted that he is a labour contractor and he agreed to supply labour for construction of Complainant’s house as per requirement and on payment. Further, OP has stated that it was agreed between the parties
- Advance Rs.20,000/-
- After completion of roof casting Rs.50,000/-
- After completion of brick work Rs.20,000/-
- After completion of pluster work Rs.20,000/-
- After completion of parapet wall Rs.20,000/-
OP has also stated that the payment was to be made according to work in progress. OP denies the fact that work was not completed as per contract because there was no such contract. OP supplied labour as per requirement. OP has denied other allegations made by the Complainant and has sprayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP filed a petition for treating the written version as affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed affidavit-in-reply.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.
In this regard, Complainant has furnished an explanation in Para 9 of the complaint petition as loss of increased material value, maintenance value Rs.70,000/-, labour charges Rs.1,60,000/-, other charges Rs.1,00,000/- and mental agony Rs.1,20,000/-.
All these can flow from any agreement between the parties in the term of contract. However, we do not find any such agreement. Some Xerox copies have been filed which reveal that there was a talk between the parties for the alleged construction. Since OP has asserted that he is a labour contractor and he supplied only labourers, the question of any contract between the parties do not arise. Had there been any contract where terms and conditions would have been incorporated, the matter would have been otherwise.
Since there is no contract, the allegation of the Complainant that OP violated the terms of the contract cannot be sustained. So, we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to any relief which he has prayed.
Hence,
ordered
CC/614/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
