ASHOK TAMRAKAR And ASSOCIATES, BUILDING CONSULTANTS vs NAVIN KUMAR GUPTA

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 20.1.2001 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No. 590/1998 allowing the complaint of the complainant/respondent and directing the appellant to pay him total sum of Rs. 37,000/- as damages and as also the cost of complaint amounting to Rs. 1,000/-.

THE complainant/respondent alleged that the opposite party/appellant had agreed to supervise the construction of the house of the complainant. However, there was serious defect in the construction resulting in demolition of certain portion of the house and reconstruction thereof, which resulted in delay in construction by about 6 months. This also caused inconvenience and harassment to the complainant/respondent. Accordingly, the complainant/respondent claimed Rs. 84,000/- towards damages. The opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint. According to the appellant on the request of the complainant/respondent he has only prepared plan and estimate of the complainant''s house. There was no agreement between the parties regarding supervision of construction work of the complainant''s house. The appellant, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The affidavit of the complainant as well as the contractor Ramsingh was filed in support of the complaint while opposite party/appellant, filed his affidavit in support of his written version.

THE learned District Forum held that there was defect in construction resulting in loss of material, etc. to the tune of Rs. 27,000/-. THE defect as above resulted in delay by 6 months in the construction, resulting in payment of unnecessary interest over the loan taken by the complainant. Accordingly damages of Rs. 34,000/- were awarded on the above counts, while compensation of Rs. 3,000/- was also awarded on account of mental harassment to the complainant/respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated his stand in the complaint and submitted that the only prepared the plan and estimates and had nothing to do with the construction activity of the complainant''s house. It was accordingly submitted that the appellant was not liable to pay damages for the alleged defect or delay in construction of the complainant''s house.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that the complainant has placed material on record to show that the complainant had undertaken supervision work of the complainant''s house and that the construction of the house was defective resulting in demolition of the defective portion and reconstruction thereof which resulted in delay in the completion of the house causing financial loss and harassment and inconvenience to the complainant/respondent. The main question that has to be considered is as to whether the respondent had undertaken supervision of the construction of the house of the complainant/respondent ? In the above context the averments of the complainant are supported by the documents placed on record. Besides his own affidavit he had also filed affidavit of Ramsingh, the person who was carrying out the construction of the house of the complainant. Ramsingh has specifically stated that the appellant was supervising the construction to the house of the complainant/respondent. In fact the estimate placed on record admittedly issued by the appellant also describes the appellant as ''Colony Planner and Building Designer'', it is signed by Manikant Tamrakar, Engineers and Creators. It obviously goes to show that the appellant undertakes construction work. The affidavit of Ramsingh also shows that the appellant supervising the construction of the house. The appellant has not filed any counter affidavit. Accordingly, it appears that the averments of the complainant that the appellant had undertaken supervision work of the complainant''s house, appears more probable and deserves to be accepted. The finding as above by the District Forum is affirmed.

THE next question that deserves to be considered is as to what compensation deserves to be awarded to the complainant-respondent ?

THE learned Counsel for the appellant in the above context submitted that the complainant had not established that he suffered loss on account of interest on loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It may be noticed in the above context that the affidavit of Ramsingh is that the demolition and reconstruction took about 15 days. As per his affidavit loss suffered on account of actual demolition, etc. was of about Rs. 7,000/-. THE delay of 6 months as alleged by the complainant/respondent appears to be on the higher side. Taking a reasonable view, the delay might be taken to be of about 2 months on account of fault construction and rectifying the defect. In the circumstances, the loss of interest on the loan taken by the complainant deserves to be proportionately reduced to Rs. 9,000/-. Accordingly, the actual damages would work out to be Rs. 9,000/- + Rs. 7,000/- for material totalling to Rs. 16,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- deserves to be added to the above as damages for mental harassment, etc. Thus total compensation of Rs. 18,000/-, deserves to be awarded, in the circumstances of the case. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. It is directed that the appellant shall pay the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 18,000/- with cost throughout of this litigation quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. The amount as above shall be payable within 2 months from today failing which it shall bear interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default till date of payment. Appeal partly allowed.