ATUL SINGH PARIHAR S/O HIRASINGH PARIHAR vs SEEMA DEGLA & ANR.

The complainant/respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner where under the petitioner was to construct a house on the land owned by the respondent/complainant for a consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-. The case of the complainant/respondent in brief is that the construction raised by the petitioner was defective and there were several cracks and breakages in the house. According to the complainant, there was seepage of water from the roof as well as in the kitchen. Also there were problems with the pipelines and obstruction in the drains of the building. The complainant/respondent spent more than Rs.50,000/- for undertaking the repairs but despite the said expenditure incurred by the complainant, several defects continued to persist. The complainant, therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking the cost of repairs which she estimated at about Rs.1,25,000/-. She also sought adequate compensation from the petitioner for the deficiency in the services rendered by him.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that there was no defect in the construction and superior quality of material was used by him for constructing the house.

The District Forum vide its order dated 14.7.2014 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.52,586/-, that being the amount which the complainant had already incurred on repair of the house along with compensation quantified at Rs.25,000/- and the cost of ligation quantified at Rs.3,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, he is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

It was noted by the State Commission that as per the affidavit dated 23.10.2007, the petitioner had taken upon himself the responsibility of installing the electricity meter and removing the cracks and seepages within a period of one year. The State Commission also noticed that besides filing photographs showing several defects in the house, the complainant had also submitted a technical report, in support of his case. As per the said report, the estimated cost of repair would be about Rs.90,000/-. The State Commission also noted that the complainant had already incurred expenditure of Rs.52,586/- in carrying due repairs and had produced bills evidencing the said expenditure. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact returned by both the fora below to the effect that there were defects in the construction raised by the petitioner for the complainant and that the complainant had already incurred expenditure of Rs.52,586/- on removing the defects in the said construction. Therefore, it would be difficult to assail the direction for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.52,586/- to the complainant.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that (i) house in question has already been sold by the complainant for a consideration of Rs.25 lakhs and (ii) the petitioner was willing to remove the alleged defects in the house and had also submitted an application making such a prayer. The amount of Rs.5,50,000/- which the complainant had paid to the petitioner did not represent the value of the entire house, the said amount being only the cost of construction. The land on which the construction was raised admittedly belonged to the complainant. It is not known what exactly was the market value of the land. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the complainant made a profit on the construction raised by the petitioner for him. When a house having certain defects is sold, it obviously would fetch a lesser price as compared to the house having no defect in it. Therefore, it would be difficult to dispute that the complainant would have got a lesser price, on account of the construction raised by the petitioner being defective.

As regards the offer to repair the house, since the fora below has awarded only the amount which the complainant had already paid/incurred on repair of the house and the house in question has been sold, there was no necessity of undertaking the repairs at the behest of the petitioner. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the said amount cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.