State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepankar Ghosh vs Smt. Moni Mala Palit on 10 July, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
(A/11/2832)
Appeal No.551/2011
Instituted on 10.10.2011
Deepankar Ghosh, S/o: Late Shri S.K. Ghosh,
R/o: Qr. No.4, Keshar Awas, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur,
BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Smt. Moni Mala Palit, W/o: Late Shri Manik Palit,
R/o: Plot No.60, Harsingar, Rajkishore Nagar,
Nr. Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bilaspur
BILASPUR (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri Sanjay Jillare, for appellant.
Respondent, present in person.
ORDER
Dated: 10/07/2012 PER: - HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER This appeal has been filed having been aggrieved by the order dated 7.09.2011 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum for short) in complaint case No.151/2010, whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the appellant herein to make some repair work as per the impugned order and get an amount Rs.5000/- from the respondent/complainant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the husband of the complainant had entered in to an agreement on 29.05.2006 with the OP // 2 // builder to construct house on ground floor and first floor of plot No.60 Harsingar Colony, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) with a condition that construction of house would be completed within one year period but despite reminders and follow up it was not done. Complainant averred that her husband had cancer in the thigh of his left leg at advance stage and he had desire to live in own house, but he died on 19.11.2007 and OP provided house to the complainant belatedly on August 2008 that too with inferior quality than what was agreed , as a result she has been facing problems. Complainant alleged that there were defects such as development of cracks in the outside wall and bedroom at ground floor, there was gap between the main wall of the house and boundary wall on west and rear side. Septic tank has been built up 15 inches above the ground level due to which rain water gets blocked in open space. Moreover lid of septic tank has been provided of cement concrete instead of iron metal. Drain has been blocked by cement as such waste water flows in open space and log there. Complainant further averred that defects such as blockage of water in open space which goes in to the plinth, defects in tiles, improper placing iron pipes on first floor, construction of straight platform in the kitchen instead of 'L' type. There is also seepage in walls. Complainant alleged that OP had committed deficiency in service, so an advocate notice was sent to him on 07.07.2010 asking for refund of amount, charged in excess towards defective construction. Complainant prayed // 3 // before the District Forum seeking direction to OP for repair of defective construction and refund of Rs.23,000/- towards expenses incurred on account of defective tiles.
3. OP while resisting the complaint and refuting the allegation leveled against him, admitted that an agreement was signed on 29.05.2006 with the husband of the complainant, whereby construction of house was agreed to be completed within one year period with the condition that cost of construction for ground floor would be Rs.4,73,250/- and Rs.3,89,250/- for first floor total Rs.8,63,500/-, but husband of the complainant could not pay periodical installments in time due to his illness as a result delay in construction occurred. OP further averred that though complainant was provided house and she occupied the same on 29.05.2008, but she did not pay complete amount. OP further averred that he constructed house as per sanctioned map using material of standard quality and most of the construction work was done at the request and desire of the complainant keeping in view the convenience for living purpose. OP in its additional version averred that the complainant had got additional work other than that mentioned in the agreement for which Rs.66,700/- was recoverable extra, but the complainant paid only total Rs.8,98,000/- and was required to pay still balance of Rs.41,200/- and to avoid the same, she filed complaint. OP further averred that the // 4 // complainant had narrated the facts exaggeratedly in her complaint, which could be examined properly by witnesses. OP prayed before the District Forum seeking direction to the complainant to pay balance Rs.41, 000/- along with Rs.50, 000/- towards mental, physical and financial loss.
4. Learned District Forum, having perused the documents before it and heard arguments of parties allowed the complaint partly, directing OP to do repair work as per the impugned order. The complainant was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to OP. OP was directed to pay cost of proceeding Rs.500/-.
5. We have perused the documents on record and heard arguments advanced by parties.
6. Contention of the appellant is that the construction of the questioned house was done as per approved map and having used material of standard quality, which had no defect and to that effect report of Commissioner dated 20.05.2011 prepared by two engineers, Shri Seemant Tiwari and Shri Prashant Budhia was there in support of said facts.
// 5 //
7. We have gone through the Commissioner report dated 20.05.2011, whereby in the last para of conclusion it was observed by the visiting engineers that there were no major defects, but there were some minor defects, which may be rectified within a cost of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- only. Learned District Forum has properly examined the report and has rightly awarded only repair work in respect of displaced tiles, rectification of seepage work adjoining bathroom on first floor, repair of cracks on ground floor and first floor also outside / inside the staircase and filling of low area with mourum soil near washing place of utensils & cloths. Such defects are usually noticed after some period of construction, which are to be rectified, so plea of the appellant that the respondent used the house for two years and then filed complaint is not sustainable.
8. Another contention of the appellant is that learned District Forum erred in awarding reconstruction of tiles, staircase, water pipe, which was already done as per agreement. Such plea is not sustainable since learned District Forum has directed in the impugned order to do some repair work only in order to mend defects in the construction work and not reconstruction.
9. The appellant has referred about some discrepancies in accounting transactions done with the respondent. Appellant stated // 6 // that Rs.9,39,200/- was payable by the respondent / complainant, but she paid only Rs.8,98,000/-, so balance Rs.41,200/- was still recoverable. We find that as per the agreement total Rs.8,63,500/- was to be paid by the respondent / complainant for complete construction. Respondent / complainant has submitted a statement about details of payment for total Rs.9,20,000/- out of which the appellant admitted to have received Rs.8,98,000/-. The respondent / complainant claims to have deposited Rs.22,000/- by cash, with the appellant, which has not been contradicted by him. Further the respondent / complainant has furnished details of cheques deposited, whereas the appellant has not produced copies of receipts, so the balance claimed by him cannot be ascertained. The matter of account settlement is not a matter of consideration within the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora, therefore, the appellant may seek remedy in appropriate Forum for recovery of amount from the respondent if any. Learned District Forum has felt it just and proper to direct the respondent for payment of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant herein.
10. The appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/07/2012 /07/2012