:ORDERS ON ADMISSION:
BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the appellant/Complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:28/02/2020 passed by IV Additional District Consumer Commission, Bengaluru in C.C.No.203/2016.
2. The parties to the appeal shall be referred to as complainant and Opposite Parties respectively as per their rankings before the District Commission.
3. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant handed over a construction of 1st Floor to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 by entering into an agreement of construction for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- and also agreed to complete the construction work within six months. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties have commenced the work of construction of the 1st Floor on 17th July 2015 and Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to the Opposite Parties for having commencement of the construction. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties have constructed up-to the lintel level and on observation of the construction, the complainant noticed that the Opposite Parties have used low quality of materials in construction of the wall and they have used sub-standard bricks and non-standard cement mixture for the construction. Immediately she instructed the Opposite Parties to stop the construction and suggested to construct as per the agreement by using the good standard materials. But the Opposite Party failed to comply, then the complainant approached the police station by complaining the non-standard construction work, for which the police have advised to approach the proper authority and thereafter the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission.
4. The District Commission after admission of the complaint, issued a notice and the Opposite Parties have appeared before the District Commission and taken a contention that they are well reputed construction company who have constructed en number of buildings without any complaints. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties for construction of the 1st Floor as because they have earlier constructed the Ground Floor of the complainant by knowing the quality of the building. The complainant again approached them to construct the 1st Floor and entered into an agreement. After commencement of the construction, the complainant has paid only Rs.3,00,000/- and they demanded for further payment for further construction, but the complainant had not paid any amount even in spite of repeated requests. Hence, they have stopped the construction of the 1st Floor and submit no deficiency in service.
5. After trial, the District Commission had come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties have used poor quality materials for construction and directed the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards construction and also directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the appellant/complainant approached this Commission and submits that compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Commission is very meager as because due to bad quality of construction, they have to demolish the 1st Floor which was constructed by the Opposite Parties and to re-built the new building. Hence, they require up-to Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service. Further, the appellant submits that the District Commission has not considered the report given by an Engineer at the time of awarding compensation. Hence, this appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of the appellant on admission. Notice to respondents is dispensed with.
8. On going through the order passed by the District Commission and memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the District Commission has awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was paid by the complainant to the respondent with respect to the construction of the building up-to the lintel level and further by considering the report given by an Engineer with regard to the quality of construction, the District Commission has awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. We found there is no irregularity in awarding the said amount.
9. On the other hand, the complainant has not made any attempt to establish that they need to demolish the building which was already constructed up-to the lintel level and they have also not made any attempt to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect the constructed building to give his report whether it requires demolition or not. In the absence of such materials, the complainant cannot demand for higher compensation.
10. We noticed in the memorandum of appeal that if the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was invested somewhere, she would have been earned interest @ 18%. But that cannot be accepted and even that cannot be considered for awarding the compensation towards deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The District Commission has exercised its discretionary power and awarded Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service. Therefore, the award passed by the District Commission does not require any intervention in this regard and hence the complainant is not entitled for any furthermore compensation. As such the appeal requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
11. Further, there is a delay of 155 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the delay condonation application and accompanying affidavit. The appellant has only made allegations against the Opposite Parties but not explained the proper reasons to condone the delay. The delay must be condoned on proper and satisfactory reasons. When the appellant fails to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on the point of limitation also.
