Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.3 That the State Government vide resolution NO. PNV162001-1502)I_ s-3 dated 27.2.2001 granted the monetary help on the basis of construction of 50 sq. mts. and construction cost of Rs. 3500/- per sq. mts. The said monetary help is limited to Rs. 1,75,000/-. Complainants have so far received Rs. 70,000/- as monetary help. The complainants have not included such help received in relief claimed for compensation.

5.4 That the complainants have shocked and dismayed on account of losses caused, they have loss of lives of their family members and tormentation of mind for long time. For the defective designing of and/or misconduct or negligence in use of substandard materials, etc. in construction of the subject building complex, complainant have to suffer losses.

6.4 That the opponents have received installments under the scheme further for the damages suffered due to natural calamity. The complainants are therefore estopped from raising claim of money as against the defendants, making false allegations of inferior construction and/or quality and quantity of the material used. The criminal complaint is made after-thought baseless action and without truth and substance in the argument. The alleged defective designing and/or misconduct or alleged negligence in use of alleged sub-standard building materials, etc. in construction of the subject building are denied. That the construction made and materials used were as per the buildings regulations that no complaint were made in 8 to 9 years about the building, etc. The opponents have denied the responsibility and liability jointly and severely for any compensation. They denied the alleged mental agony or mental tormentation loss suffered by complainants, commission and omissions of misconduct or negligence on the part of Opponents in designing and also in execution of and in use of alleged substandard building materials in construction work. That the complainants have to produce documentary evidence in direct proof as regards to the causes of disaster. The entire case is based on such presumption and baseless assumptions; based on which no liability, can be inflicted upon the Opponents; under any provision of law.

7.4 That the F.I.R. was filed against the other opponents however, no F.I.R. was filed against the opponent as opponent was no were connected either with the construction or with the design of the subject building. That the allegations regarding defective designing of and/or misconduct of negligence in use of substandard building materials, etc. in construction of the subject building, have nothing to do with opponent. It is further stated that the said unfortunate incident took place due to act of god i.e. earthquake and not due to any other reason. It is also stated that complainants are not having any proof for the cause of disaster. However, it is denied that the said unfortunate incident took place due to commissions or omissions on the part of any of the opponents. It is denied that the subject building collapsed due to misconduct or negligence on the part of any of the opponents. That the complaints are liable to be rejected and he has requested to dismiss the complaint.

Limitation:

18. Complainants have stated in para 3.05 (A) of the complaint that during the recent earthquake of 26.1.2001, the subject building block B was collapsed leading to total destruction of the constructions units and therefore, complainants have suffered the losses. It is further stated in para 3.07 of the complaint that the FIR was lodged in the Ellis-bridge Police Station on 2.2.2001. That the said incident was taken place due to defective designing of and/or misconduct or negligence in execution of constructions work and use of substandard building materials, etc. in construction of the subject building. It is submitted by the ld. representative/ld. advocate for the complainant that the complaint filed within the period of limitation.