Basant Kumar Katariya (Jain) & Anr. vs Angarak Dev Deshmukh on 5 December, 2024
The Petitioner also relied upon the judgments passed by this Commission in Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. and Others V. Canbank Mutual Fund and Anr., Jaya Shree Insulators V. West Bengal State Electricity, M/s Bright Transport Co. V. The Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ms. Reema Bajaj V. Smt. Vidya Khera and Ors. The Fora below without going through the judgments which were filed before them have passed the order. Therefore the observation given by the State Commission deserves to be set-aside. It is further contended that the price of house was Rs.47,00,000/- in which the cost of false ceiling and interior and specimen material was not included. It was undisputed that the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.32,14,000/- and has not paid the balance amount. The Petitioners have very clearly stated in reply to the notice that the price of the house was Rs.47,00,000/-. The Respondent has stated that the price of the house was Rs.25,14,000/- and they have paid Rs.7,00,000/- more to the Petitioners. It is also contended that if the price was Rs.25,14,000/- then why the Respondent will pay more amount than the price fixed. It is also contended that the Respondent has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the facts. As per the complainant the price of the house was Rs.25,14,000/- and he has paid Rs.7,00,000/- more and apart from that he has claimed compensation 2000/- per day. The State Commission in its order dated 01.10.2015 has given the observation in para 13 that there is no complicated question of law in the present case, which is not correct. The State Commission has confused themselves and has given the wrong observation by believing on the pleadings of the complainant, which is clear from para 14 of the order in which the State Commission on believing the certificate produced by complainant before the District Forum, which was the report of Netram Sahu Planix Associates who has done the inspection as per the complainant in the absence of the OPs. From the perusal of report it is clear that the report is made on the direction of the complainant and the report is defective as the calculation done Netram Sahu is not as per the law and he has assessed the amount illegally without any basis, which is clear from the observation given by the State Commission. The State Commission has passed the order as per the amount assessed by Net Ram Sahu, which was not having evidential value. It is also contended that the Respondent failed to prove that there was any defective construction or the work was of substandard quality.