State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dinesh Ivne vs Vishnu Prasad Uike on 13 July, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.269 / 2018.
Dinesh Ivane,
s/o Shri Ramdayal Ivane,
Proprietor Durgesh Construction Company,
Harda (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
Vishnu Prasad Uike,
s/o Shri Badriprasad Uike,
Harda (M.P.). .... RESPONDENT.
As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 13.07.2022 Shri Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Yogendra Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent. Heard.
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 arises out of the order dated 12.7.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Harda (for short the 'District Commission') in CC No.292/2017.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent - complainant had filed a consumer complaint against the appellant alleging therein that for construction of a house on plot admeasuring 15 x 40 = 600 sq. ft. in Siddhi Vinayak Colony, he on 12.9.2016 entered into an agreement with the appellant - opposite
- 2- party. According to the respondent, the appellant had to hand over possession of the house within six months after completing construction work as per the agreement. But, the appellant could not complete construction work within six months even after receiving full payment of Rs.6,29,418/-. The construction work of the house was found to be of a poor quality and not as per the specifications mentioned in the agreement. As a result alleging deficiency in service the respondent issued a notice on 13.11.2017 to the appellant, but when no heed was paid to it, he filed the complaint as aforesaid.
3. The District Commission issued notice of the complaint to the appellant, but the appellants remained ex-parte and could not file reply.
4. The District Commission after considering the evidence led by the respondent - complainant allowed the complaint and issued following directions :
ß¼1½ vukosnd }kjk dk;Z viw.kZ NksM+ fn;s tkus ds dkj.k v/kwjs fuekZ.k dk;Z dks iw.kZ djk;s tkus esa vkosnd }kjk O;; dh xbZ dqy jkf'k 60]451@& :i;s dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk,A ¼2½ vukosnd }kjk vkosnd ls mlds vuqca/k dh ns; jkf'k 6]00]000@& :i;s ds LFkku ij 6]29]418@&& :i;s dh jkf'k izkIr fd;s tkus ds ckotwn dk;Z Hkh iw.kZ djds ugha fn;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vukosnd }kjk vkosnd dks 29]418@& :i;s dh jkf'k Hkqxrku dh tk,A &3& ¼3½ vukosnd }kjk vkosnd ds edku dk dk;Z iw.kZ ugha djus ds dkj.k vkosnd dks tks ekufld la=kl dkfjr gqvk gS bl gsrq vkosnd dks vukosnd }kjk 10]000@& :i;s dh jkf'k Hkqxrku dh tk,A ¼4½ vukosnd }kjk vkosnd dks mijksDr dafMdk Øekad&1] 2 ,oa 3 esa of.kZr jkf'k;ksa dk Hkqxrku vkns'k dh izfr izkIr gksus ds fnuakd ls 2 ekg dh vof/k esa fd;k tk,xk vU;Fkk mDr jkf'k;ksa ij 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt ns; gksxkA ¼5½ vkosnd dk ifjokn O;; 1]000@& :i;s Hkh vukosnd }kjk ogu fd;k tk,xkAÞ
5. Feeling aggrieved the appellants had filed this appeal.
6. Having gone through the impugned order and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that before the District Commission the respondent - complainant did not lead any expert evidence in regard to the allegations about the poor construction quality of the house in question and about its condition, we are of the view that in order to find out the correct facts and in order to get the matter decided appropriately it would be proper to set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
5. The parties are at liberty to file evidence / further evidence in the matter within the time as may be fixed by the District Commission.
- 4-
6. The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 29.8.2022.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (S. S. Bansal)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke