Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Presiding Member:
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (‘the District Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.365/2010.
2. The facts of the appeal can be summarized as under:
The original Complainant had entered into an agreement with the Appellant/Opponent for construction of a house i.e. on Plot No.608/6 admeasuring 300 sq.ft. for a consideration of `1,95,000/- and the construction was to be completed on 10.12.2009. It is contended by the original Complainant that from 10.02.2009 to 19.02.2010 the Complainant has paid an amount of `1,95,404/- to the Appellant/Opponent. However, the Appellant/Opponent has not carried out the construction as per the approved plan within a given time limit and he has completed construction only 50% and the construction was stopped since March, 2010. It is further alleged that the construction is of poor quality. On asking about the quality of the work, the Appellant/Opponent behaved rudely and threatened to kill. It is stated that the Appellant/Opponent had done a construction which is valued of `40,000/- to `50,000/-. Considering this, a deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/Opponent the Respondent/Complainant had filed consumer complaint praying to declare the Appellant/Opponent as deficient in service and to direct the Appellant/Opponent to pay compensation of `1,50,000/-, `25,000/- for mental and financial agony and costs of the complaint.
3. The Opponent had contested the complaint by filing the written version stating therein that the total construction was to be carried out of 330 sq.ft. built-up area and 350 sq.ft slab area and the Appellant/Opponent had given an estimate of `2,06,000/-. Similarly, after executing certain work he had given an estimate of `1,66,000/-. In the negotiations it was decided that the costs of the construction of `1,95,000/- and the payment was to be made within three or four installments and the construction was to be completed within a period of three months. The Appellant/Opponent started the work, however, the Complainant used to interfere in the same. The Complainant wanted to do the additional work of `20,172/-. The Complainant had paid him an amount of `1,70,000/- and an amount of `45,962/- is still to be paid. The remaining work is only 5%. The Opponent contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint may please be dismissed.
4. We heard Advocate Mr.Khan, for the Appellant and Respondent in person.
5. Admittedly, there is an agreement between the Appellant/Opponent and the Respondent/Complainant on 10.12.2009 and as per the agreement costs of construction to be carried out by the Appellant/original Opponent was `1,95,000/- and the period for the completion of work was three months. Admittedly, the construction work has not been completed as per the agreement. The Respondent/original Complainant has produced on record the valuation report of the work carried out by the Appellant/Opponent of one Mr.Dilip M. Shah, Engineers, Architects and Registered Valuers. As per the valuation report the costs of the construction carried by the Appellant/Opponent is shown as `48,500/- and the Appellant/Opponent has neither challenged said report nor produced any evidence to contradict said report. Similarly, the Appellant/Opponent had not produced any evidence to prove that he has carried out the work valued at `20,172/- in addition to the work shown in the agreement. The Appellant/Opponent has not produced any evidence to prove that he has carried out the work as per the agreement between the parties as well as he has not contradicted the valuation report produced by the Respondent/Complainant. This is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/Opponent. Taking into consideration all the facts, the District Forum has passed the order.
6. During the hearing of the appeal the Appellant/Opponent has miserably failed to prove the case. The order passed by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal does not have any merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order passed by the District Forum is confirmed.
Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 24th July, 2013.
