Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)              This is an appeal filed by the original Complainant whose complaint had been dismissed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Sindhudurg, by judgement dated 22.12.1999 passed in Consumer Complaint No.4/1999.

(2)                Admitted facts are that Complainant had given contract of construction to Respondent Shri Balkrishna Govind Parab for construction of house at Kudal.  Agreed cost of construction was `2,05,000/-.  It is the case of the Complainant that he had paid `1,00,000/- to the Opponent by way of two installments and Complainant’s grievance is that without completing the construction the Respondent/original Opponent left the work incomplete and therefore he alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/original Opponent and filed consumer complaint to recover amount of `70,000/- as according to Complainant he had simply made construction of `30,000/-.

(3)                Opponent filed written statement and contested the claim.  Opponent asserted that he had made construction as per contract.  He had procured construction material at the site of the Complainant.  He had completed foundation work and the Forum was satisfied that Opponent had made construction of foundation and he had also procured construction material at the site.  It was proved by the Opponent on the basis of photographs adduced by the Opponent in support of his defence that he had completed construction as per agreement.  It is the contention of Opponent that Complainant had not given full amount of consideration so he  could not construct the house completely and default was with the Complainant and not with him.

(4)                The District Forum found that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opponent and was pleased to dismiss the complaint.  Aggrieved by the said dismissal the original Complainant has filed this appeal.

(5)                We heard Appellant/original Complainant in person.  We perused the impugned order and documents on record.  

(6)                What is pertinent to note is the fact that Appellant has not produced on record written statement and the documents produced by the Opponent/Respondent in the District Forum.  When this is the state of affair there is no reason why we should not confirm the order passed by the District Forum dismissing the complaint which is just and proper and it does not call for any interference.

(7)                It is pertinent to note that complainant has not adduced any expert evidence before the District Forum to establish that the Opponent had not made construction as per agreement.  In fact, Complainant paid only `1,00,000/- out of `2,05,000/- consideration agreed between the parties.  When Complainant had not paid full payment as per construction, the Contractor/original Opponent had constructed foundation of the house and he had purchased and brought at the site all the construction material required for construction of the house which District Forum found to be truthful.  Thus, we find that blame lies with the Appellant/Complainant himself for not giving remaining amount of the consideration and not permitting Respondent/Opponent to complete the construction of the house.

(8)                In any view of the matter, we are of the view that the Complainant failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opponent and it appears that District Forum, Sindhudurg rightly dismissed the complaint on the basis of material placed on record by the Appellant.  We cannot take different view than the view rightly taken by the District Forum and hence, pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)          Appeal stands dismissed.

       (ii)          No order as to costs.

     (iii)          Inform the parties accordingly.