In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   238 / 2009.

1)                   Mrs. Pompa Majumdar,

P-9, C.I.T. Scheme, 114A, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700045.                          ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Mr. Sanjeev Seal,

P-36, C.I.T. Scheme, 114A, Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700045.

2)                   Mr. Shyama Prosad Mukherjee,

7C/1, Abinash Chandra Banerjee Lane, Kolkata-700010.                          ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.   3 1    Dated  2 7 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 2 .

The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant Mrs. Pompa Majumdar against Mr. Sanjeev Seal and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant engaged Soumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. o.p. no.1 for const5ruction of the 2^nd floor of her existing two storied house with an initial payment of Rs.8,50,000/- by cheque on different dates. O.p. no.1 hired the services of o.p. no.2 who is an LBS for preparation of the plan and supervision. On 19.3.09 sanctioned plan of construction over 1028 sq.ft. duly approved by the KMC was handed over to the complainant. On 14.3.09 the work started. But even aftr a lapse of three months the progress of work found not upto the mark and even brick remained incomplete.

On 3.6.09 o.p. no.1 handed over a work done bill of Rs.11,85,050/- and demanded Rs.3,35,050/- more. Being dissatisfied the complainant refused further payment and stopped the work on 5.6.09. O.p. no.1 agreed to refund any amount if the estimated value became less that Rs.8.5 lakhs on verification of work done by a competent person.

          Accordingly the complainant engaged an architect firm ‘STHAPATYA’ of 11, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kol-25. The survey report stood as follows;

Value of work done till date                                              = Rs.2,88,960

    “        “        required to complete the remaining works =  Rs.4,62,600

Expenditure require to repair the serious damage done to

1^st floor roof slab and beams during construction work.

          The surveyor also reported that safety norms have been flouted. 1^st floor roof slab and beams have been severely damaged at places at the time of removing of roof lites. Cracks in concrete of roof slab and beams have occurred resulting leakage of water from several places during rain. They suggested water proof treatment in the 1^st floor.

          The complainant alleged that during rain water entered in the electrical circuit causing shock to them. Ceiling fan got burnt and construction material scallered round the house. There are more and more allegation against the construction work. The complainant paid Rs.16,377/- to the KMC for sanction plan. O.p. no.2 produced a bill of Rs.1,080,000/- which included a supervision charge of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, the case.

Decision with reasons: -

          We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. The o.ps. in their w/v contended that as per agreement the complainant was to pay construction work @ Rs.800/- per sq.ft. They have alleged that after 3.6.09 the o.p. no.1 or his men was never allowed by the complainant to enter into the premises.

It is an admitted position that complainant had agreement with o.p. no.1 for construction of the 2^nd floor of her existing two storied house with an initial payment of Rs.8,50,000/- by cheque on different dates and o.p. no.1 engaged services of o.p. no.2 who is an LBS and o.p. no.2 got the sanctioned plan approved by KMC over 1028 sq.ft. on 19.3.09 and the same was handed over to complainant. O.p. no.1 after some initial work placed an work done bill of Rs.11,85,050/- and further demanded balance amount of Rs.3,35,050/- and at it complainant refused to pay the said sum and o.p. no.1 pressed for valuation of the work done by him by a competent persona and surveyor was appointed and surveyor opined that work done by o.p. no.1 was of Rs.2,88,960/- and thereafter complainant being dissatisfied lodged the instant case. It is also seen from the record that this Forum appointed a surveyor to assess the valuation of the work done by o.p. no.1 and surveyor submitted his report before this Forum wherefrom it reveals that the inspection was undertaken in presence of both sides on 6.3.11 ad the report speaks that 95% of brick work along roof casting and allied RCC work for the 2^nd floor and stair room at roof is completed. All other works including electrical, sanitary, plumbing, door and window with grill and finishing work were not completed and work done by o.p. no.1 in some portion was in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Moreover, a 5” thick of desirable structural strength of the building was found to substitute the said 10” thick wall by 5” thick wall and beam was found to be inadequate in size and structural work done by locally available materials. It is also reflected from the surveyor’s report that 1^st floor room was damaged badly during structural work and surveyor opined after assessing every aspect that work amounting a sum of Rs.3,57,400/- was done.

We have considered the surveyor’s report referred to above which was jointly inspected in presence of both sides and we are further of the view that neither of the parties should deviate from the said report. We find that o.ps. had sufficient deficiency in discharging allotted work being service provider engaged by consumer / complainant. on perusal of the surveyor’s report and having regards to the pleadings of the parties we find it proper that o.p. no.1 should not be allowed to get the incomplete work done since complainant is vexed with o.p. no.1. We find it proper to direct o.p. no.1 to refund a sum of Rs.(8,50,000 – 3,57,400) = Rs.4,92,600/- and it is to be mentioned here that complainant personally incurred a sum of Rs.16,377/- towards the charges for sanctioned plan from KMC.

Hence, ordered,

That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. no.1 and without cost against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is strictly directed to refund of Rs.4,92,600/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety two thousand six hundred) only to the complainant together with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of stoppage of work i.e. 5.6.2009 till the date of realization. O.p. no.1 is further directed to  pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   _____Sd-_____                     _____Sd-_____               ______Sd-________

     MEMBER                            MEMBER                        PRESIDENT