Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

          The appellant herein being complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum stating that being a land-lord of plot No. DF-4, Premises No. 75-0316 under Action Area - 1A  New Town, Kolkata - 7000156 for the purpose of raising construction on the said plot of land entered into an agreement with the respondent on 30.11.2008 for completion of building planning, structural drawing, sanctioning of the same from the New Town Kolkata Development Authority (N.K.D.A.) for a proposed G+3 storied building. The appellant has paid all the dues of Rs. 25,000/- on demand. On 20.02.2009 the plan was sanctioned and when the complainant went to collect the same from the authority he was verbally informed that though his plan has been sanctioned for dwelling house but it will be treated as defective one since there was no proposed plan for drinking water, sewerage or drainage line and he will be required to submit a revised plan to correct the deficiencies. Subsequently, a plan for second time was placed and the appellant has paid Rs. 30,000/- to the respondent. Upon receipt of second sanctioned plan dated 16.07.2012 the appellant noticed that the plan was made arbitrarily by the respondent without taking into consideration the appellant's choice of rooms. Thereafter, the plan was submitted for the third time and it was sanctioned by N.K.D.A. on 11.11.2013. The appellant has stated that the said plan was also made arbitrarily and it was found that the structural drawing was more defective. When the appellant has made protest of it, the respondent asked the appellant that if it's structural plan is faulty then the he may appoint a qualified person in the field to prove the same to be wrong. Accordingly, the respondent has obtained a certificate from a professional Civil Engineer on 18.11.2014 and where it has been stated that the said structural drawings of the building plan was defective. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs, viz.- (a) to pass an order upon the respondent to return a sum of Rs. 2,53,000/- as follows:- (i) Rs. 55,000/- for providing defective plans in two occasions; (ii) Rs. 22,000/- for making unnecessary second time soil test; (iii) Rs. 10,000/- for claiming the same in the name of extra work; (iv) Rs. 1,00,000/- for appreciation of revised structural drawing by Nirmalaya Chatterjee; (v) Rs. 66,440/- for sanctioning of building plan for the first two occasions; (b) compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- for mental agony and harassment; (c) Rs. 1,00,000/- as cost. Etc.           The respondent being opposite party by filing a written version has stated that the appellant has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of the first agreement and Rs. 30,000/- in respect of second agreement and Rs. 40,000/- in respect of final agreement amounting to Rs. 95,000/- as against the agreement. However, the appellant has paid Rs. 90,000/- against the said amount and an outstanding amount of Rs. 5,000/- is due which the appellant is to pay him. Apart from this, initially the appellant arranged for soil test as per the report, foundation pile was recommended and the respondent did structural design on the basis of the soil report but as per the second report of the soil test they recommended shallow foundation for which the respondent had to change the structural design again with the appellant's consent and the appellant agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- extra for structural drawing but later on the request of the appellant, the respondent charged a sum of Rs. 10,000/-  as till date an amount of Rs. 5,000/- still due and payable by the appellant. The respondent has stated that there was no deficiency on the part of him and as such the complaint should be dismissed.