Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/596/2015

Kuldeep Kumar Verma s/o Deewan Singh Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shankar Lal Bairwa s/o Gipi Ram - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Tngawat

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 596 /2015

 

Kuldeep Kumar Verma s/o Deewan Singh Verna r/o House No. 37/171 Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

Shankar Lal Bairwa (Contractor) s/o Sh.Gopiram r/o 64, Panchvati Colony, Kamla Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. Permanent resident of village Akoda,Tehsil Phulera, Distt. Ajmer.

 

Date of Order 04.01.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mrs.Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr.R.K.Tongawat counsel for the appellant

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Bairwa counsel for the respondent

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the court below dated 22.4.2015 whereby the court below has dismissed the complaint of the appellant.

 

The contention of the appellant is that agreement dated 29.5.2010 is an admitted document between the parties and inspite of this the court below has wrongly rejected his complaint. He paid the money but the respondent has not fulfilled his conditions. He has not constructed the house. Hence, it is deficiency of service on part of the respondent and he is entitled for compensation as well as refund of money. Further it has been said that respondent himself has admitted that he received Rs. 3,50,000/- as payment from the appellant but he has not constructed his house.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that agreement was made to construct the house on Rs.5.51 lakhs but the appellant has not paid the money in terms of the agreement. Hence, he has not made any deficiency in service.

3

 

 

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as the original record of the case.

 

The court below has rightly held that no receipt, cheque or bank record has been filed to show that the payment was made as per the agreement. It is true that the respondent has admitted the fact that he received Rs. 3,50,000/- as per agreement but agreement was for Rs. 5.51 lakhs. It has also not been disclosed by the appellant that how much construction has been made by the respondent and it is very alarming that inspite of deficiency of service, on 4.10.2010 the appellant has paid Rs.15,000/- to the respondent which shows that he was happy with the progress and quality of the work and on the very next day he has issued the notice that respondent has made deficiency in service which are contradictory in itself and the court below has rightly assessed the facts of the case.

 

There is no perversity in the order of the court below and the court below has also held that it is the case of civil nature. There is no case of deficiency of service but it seems to be dispute of money matter. In view of the above there is no need

 

4

 

 

of any interference in the order of the court below. The appeal is dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Sunita Ranka) (Nisha Gupta )

Member Member President

 

 

nm