Orissa

Cuttak

CC/35/2022

Gopinath Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rohit Kumar Swain - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.35/2022

Gopinath Sahoo,

S/O:Late Iswar Chandra Sahoo,

At:Kunheipada,(Near Trisulia),P.O/P.S:Baranga,

Dist:Cuttak,Pin-754005,Odisha.                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

              Rohit Kumar Swain,

S/O:Late Satrughana Swain,

At:Poporada,P.O:Nuabazar,P.S:Madhupatna,

Town/Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.... Opp. Party.

                       

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    24.02.2022

Date of Order:   26.09.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.               :                 None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.             

                Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is a legal practitioner whereas the O.P is a civil contractor.  The complainant had entered into an agreement with the O.P for construction of his single storied residential building through the O.P and the agreement reflected the entire terms and conditions therein.  The complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.19,23,000/- to the O.P on different dates and had possessed acknowledgements thereon.  The complainant to his displeasure could notice that there were many diversions from the specifications as agreed upon which were to be executed for his residential building and that poor quality of materials were used which were widely different from the specifications as envisaged in the agreement.  When the O.P turned a deaf ear to his repeated persuasions, the complainant had to file this case seeking direction to the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to him towards the overall repair works of his building as done by the O.P., to refund a sum of Rs.41,000/- which according to the complainant, the O.P had taken in excess of the agreed rate of execution, to get another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his mental agony, harassment as caused for gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practise as obtained by the O.P.  The complainant has also claimed the cost of his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the O.P together with any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

            The complainant has filed a series of documents and photographs to establish the low quality of the work and deviation thereof as executed by the O.P. while constructing his house.

2.         On the other hand, the O.P having not contested this case was set exparte on 27.7.22 .

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable ?

                        ii.         Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?

                        iii.        Whether the O.P had adopted any unfair trade practice ?

                        iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed ?

Points no.ii & iii.

Out of the four points required to be thought of while coming to a conclusion in this case, this Commission thinks it proper to decide points no.ii & iii first, which are important ones and are thus taken up together first for consideration here in this case.

            From the unchallenged and unshattered averments of the complaint petition, supported by the documentary evidence as filed therein, this Commission noticed that infact there was gross deficiency in service as made by the O.P to the complainant and that infact the O.P had thereby practised unfair trade.

Points no.i & iv.

            From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is found to be maintainable and the complainant is thus entitled to the reliefs to a reasonable extent in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

 

                                                            ORDER

            The case is allowed exparte against the O.P.  The O.P is directed to repair the constructed building of the complainant within a month hence without charging anything from him since because due to his low quality of work, the complainant had to suffer.  Thus the O.P is to adhere to all the agreed components, materials and colours as per the agreement entered into and repair the residential house of the complainant without any change.  The excess amount of Rs.41,000/- be returned by the O.P to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum till the total amount is quantified.  The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment of the complainant and also to bear the litigation cost of the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 26^th day of   September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                            Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                           Member