Judgment:
Oral Order:-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment/award passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Satara in Complaint No. 94/2008, whereby the forum below was pleased to allow the complaint vide judgment dated 09.07.2008. Not satisfied with the relief granted by the forum below the Complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant had filed consumer complaint against Consulting Engineer and Contractor, the Opposite Party herein. He pleaded that he owned Property No.803 at Patan. He wanted to construct house on his land. He contacted Opposite Party for the construction of house. Opposite party accordingly got the plans sanctioned. He executed agreement with the Opposite Party and as per agreement the ground floor was to be constructed by Opposite Party for the amount of Rs.2,04,000/-. Complainant actually paid Rs.3,40,000/- under installments as per completion of stages. While construction of ground floor was under progress both the parties agreed that first floor should also be constructed and therefore, Complainant paid Rs.50,000/- on one occasion and Rs.20,000/- on another occasion in cash. But, he was not issued receipts by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party executed an agreement to construct the house properly. He left deficiencies and defects in the construction of building and therefore Complainant pleaded that he suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/-. He sent registered notice through his advocate to the Opposite Party, but, Opposite Party did not give any reply and therefore, he filed consumer complaint for getting compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and also Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment. He also prayed for costs of the proceeding.
3. Opposite party filed written statement and denied most of the averments made in the complaint. He admitted that there was construction agreement between the Complainant and himself. As per agreement he had constructed the building, but because of rainy season the construction was delayed. Ultimately he completed the construction and when he found that construction of the ground floor was properly made, Complainant asked him to make further construction of the first floor. He agreed to give advance, but Complainant avoided to make further payment though he made further construction. According to Opposite Party for construction he has to recover Rs.4,04,000/- from the Complainant, but, he received from the Complainant only an amount of Rs.3,14,000/-. When he had insisted the Complainant to pay remaining amount, he filed this false consumer complaint. He pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on his part. He made proper construction. He therefore pleaded that complaint should be dismissed and Complainant should be directed to pay him Rs.90,000/-.
4. The parties filed their documents and affidavits. Considering the same, the forum below found that, initially as per agreement Opposite Party was required to construct 500 sq. ft. house for the Complainant for Rs.2,04,000/-. The said agreement was silent as to within how many days it should be constructed. Forum below had also noted that Opposite Party had agreed and Complainant paid him Rs.3,14,000/- for the construction of the house, but Complainant had listed so many grievances which were not at all mentioned in the agreement executed between the parties. The forum below however found that, on the tin cover of staircase he should have put loda and since it was not done by the Opposite Party forum below held that the complaint should be allowed partly and Opposite Party should be directed to put loda on the roof of the staircase, so complaint was partly allowed and Opposite Party was directed to do the needful and so also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant by way of costs. Not satisfied with the inadequate relief granted, the Complainant has filed this appeal.
5. We heard submissions of Mr. Ramesh Shinde, Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. A.R. Janugade, Advocate for the Respondent. We are finding that there is no merit in the appeal. The forum below rightly considered the case of the rival parties in the right perspective and found that Complainant had executed agreement with the Opposite Party for the sum of Rs.2,04,000/-, but Complainant had paid actually the amount of Rs.3,14,000/-. So there was something more which was constructed by the Opposite Party, but it was not mentioned in the written agreement. Forum below therefore noted that, as per construction agreement Opposite Party had constructed the house and given delivery of the same. The forum below noted in its order that Opposite Party had asked for so many things which are mentioned in the written agreement executed between the parties. Therefore, it was pleased to turn down the grievances of the Complainant listed in the complaint. The forum below, therefore, partly allowed the complaint and directed Opposite Party to construct loda on the roof of steel of the staircase. As such, Complainant himself has filed this appeal. We are finding that order passed by the forum below is just and proper and there is no merit in the appeal. The appellant has produced report of Architect â Shital Kadam, who has mentioned so many things in his site visit report dated 28th May, 2008. But, forum below found that the agreement was silent on so many aspects which have been mentioned by the architect in his site visit report.
6. We have perused the agreement executed between the parties which is appended in the appeal by the appellant. On page Nos. 18 and 19, it simply mentioned that the construction should be RCC frame structure. The construction should include two shop premises, one staircase and one latrine on the back. There should be loft of âC type, the height of construction of foundation should be 2 feet, the flooring should be polished in Shahabadi, rolling shutters âCRC should be affixed, and the brick work should be in six inches. This is all what is mentioned in the agreement. So, on such cryptic agreement, grievances made out by the appellant in his complaint or in his architects report cannot be acted upon. Moreover, according to Respondent they had made construction of worth Rs.4,04,000/-, whereas the Complainant/Appellant has paid him the amount of Rs.3,14,000/-. So he had to recover more than Rs.90,000/- and if Appellant has not paid Rs.90,000/- then Respondent is justified in not making complete construction as desired by the Appellant herein. Therefore, we are finding no substance in the appeal. He had made construction of the house and appellant cannot expect something more from the Respondent when he is not ready to pay remaining charges to the Respondent for the work done by him. Under the circumstances, we are finding the appeal is devoid of any substance. Hence, we pass the following order:
Order:
(1) Appeal stands dismissed.
(2) Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(3) Inform parties accordingly free of costs.