Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)                This is an appeal filed by the original Opponent against the judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.314/2002.  While allowing the complaint partly the District Forum directed original Opponent – Mr.Raghvendra Arun Joshi of Solapur to pay the amount of `15,000/- and `10,500/- to the Complainant with interest @9% per annum from 10.12.2000 till realization of the amount and also directed to pay `3,000/- towards mental harassment and `500/- towards costs.  Aggrieved by this order original Opponent has filed this appeal.

(2)                This appeal was filed in the year 2004.  It was lying unattended for the last 7 years.  As per the policy of this Commission this matter was placed before this bench for disposal on 29^th July, 2011.  On that day we had directed office to issue notice to both the parties since on that day both parties were absent.  Notice was made returnable on today i.e. on 27^th September, 2011.  Office had issued notice on 21.09.2011 but still both parties are absent.  Therefore, we perused the impugned judgement, appeal memo and documents.

(3)                We are finding that the Respondent had filed consumer complaint against the builder developer for deficiency in service as the Opponent could not give his house entrusted to him by the Respondent by way of contract.  Respondent had in all paid `1,44,000/- from time to time.  The Respondent pleaded in his complaint that the Opponent/Appellant had completed 80 per cent work on 30.12.1998 and left the remaining work incomplete.   So he did not carry out 20 per cent work.  Therefore, he approached Opponent and requested him to complete the remaining work.  To complete incomplete work he asked for `5,000/- which Respondent had paid that amount but despite receiving `5,000/- he had not completed the work and therefore, he filed consumer complaint claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant/original Opponent.

(4)                Opponent filed written version and denied the allegations made by the Complainant.  Opponent pleaded that the Complainant had not given monies well in time. There was delay of 8 months and that is why he could not have option but to increase the price.  Opponent pleaded that as there was delay in making payment of 8 months by the Complainant he had to spend `40,000/- more than the agreed price of `1,33,200/-.  Opponent pleaded that he was not guilty of deficiency in service and as such he prayed that complaint should be dismissed with costs.

(5)                However, the District Forum on the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record held that construction work carried out by the Opponent was to the extent of `1,33,200/- but Complainant had paid in all `1,44,000/- to the Opponent.  The District Forum also noted that the Opponent had left 20% work in incomplete stage.  This fact was admitted by Opponent in arguments.  The District Forum also noted in its order that besides the Complainant had paid `5,000/- more on demand by the Opponent, still he left 20% work in incomplete stage and therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed Opponent to refund the amount of `10,500/- which was taken extra and also directed to him to pay further amount of `15,000/- which the Complainant would be required to spend for engaging another contractor to complete the remaining 20% work.  The District Forum also awarded `3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and `500/- as costs.  As such the Opponent has filed this appeal.

(6)                Nobody has appeared for the Appellant as well as for the Respondent.  Whereas, we are satisfied that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint filed by the Respondent.  The Appellant/Opponent had constructed 80% work and had left 20% work in incomplete stage and as such the District Forum held that Opponent was guilty of deficiency in service and therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the Appellant/original Opponent to pay above amounts to the Complainant.  Said order in our view is just and proper and it is sustainable in law.  We are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by the original Opponent.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

         (i)              Appeal stands dismissed.

       (ii)              No order as to costs.

     (iii)              Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 27^th September, 2011.