Jagannath Mandal vs Sanjoy Ghosh

THIS present revision petition is filed against the order dated 10.11.2005 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (n short, ''the State Commission) in SC Case no. 4/A of 2004. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has not filed the original complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly (in short, ''the District Forum ''). Hence, the facts of the case are reproduced from the orders of the District Forum. Shri Jagannath Mondal son of late Ramphal Mondal of Hooghly has alleged that Shri Sanjay Ghosh the respondent herein came to an agreement with him orally that Mr Ghosh would complete his two storied residential building at Chinsurah at the cost of Rs.10,45,738/-. It was a turn-key project i.e., Mr Ghosh will have to complete the building with boundary walls, lime terrace, concrete water tank, marbel setting and bath room, toilets all electrical wiring and fitting, roof treatment etc.

THE petitioner has stated that he was an employer of M/s Uranium Corporation of India Ltd., at Jadugada and he was residing in the quarters of the company at Jadugada Colony in Jharkhand, therefore, he was unable to supervise the construction regularly. He has stated that the work was started on 28.02.2000 and he had an argument with Mr Ghosh that the building constructions would be completed within nine months and he would have to leave the quarters on 20th November 2000 and if he cannot leave the quarters within that scheduled date he will have to pay house rent @ 4000/- per month, instead of Rs.196/- per month. Moreover, he will have to pay electric charges @ Rs.4/- per unit instead of 60 paisa per unit. Therefore, he will have to incur huge loss if the house construction was not completed within the scheduled date. The petitioner alleged that Mr Ghosh, the respondent left the construction work on flimsy ground that some miscreants of the locality demanded donation from him and he could not redress the demand of the miscreants. The petitioner has said that this is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent and he had to suffer a loss for the non-completion of the building. Moreover, he had to complete the rest of the building for which had to spend Rs.4,80,000/- for the completion of the building. The petitioner has said that he had paid excess amount of Rs.1,59,128/-. Moreover, he had to incur loss to the amount of Rs.73,000/- for the delay of the construction and house rent from 01.12.2000 to 20.01.2001.

THE Respondent, Mr Sanjoy Ghosh, admitted that he had an oral agreement with Mr Mondal for the construction of two storied building and he started the construction on 28.02.2002 but he was not aware that the petitioner will have to leave his quarters at Ranchi on and from November 2002. The respondent has denied that he wilfully left the place of work in the first week of November 2000 without completing the work. The respondent has also admitted that he has received Rs.6,10,000/- from the petitioner but he denied that he was aware of the estimated cost submitted by the petitioner authenticated by a civil engineer. The estimated cost was Rs.4,40,872/-. The respondent has stated that there is a due for Rs.35,000/- from the petitioner and he has submitted a detailed estimate of that amount. The respondent has stated that 60% of the entire work was done by him and he had to spend another Rs.15,000/- for the repair of the work which was damaged by the miscreants and he did not demand the money from the petitioner and he has spent that money from his own pocket. The respondent has stated that he had completed the rest of the work under his supervision and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs.300/- per day for that purpose and he had to visit the place 30 times as per his such agreement. The respondent has submitted a bill for Rs.6,26,438/- and he received payment of Rs.6,10,000/-. He has also demanded that Rs.9000/- is due to the petitioner for his supervision activities. He is, therefore, entitled to get Rs.35,438/- from the petitioner.

THE respondent has submitted an affidavit in support of his claim and statement. Shri Sanat Dutta electrician has also submitted an affidavit where he has stated that Sanjoy Ghosh completed rest of the work and the petitioner agreed to pay for the rest of the work to the workers directly. Jakir Khan (Mason) son of late Kobad Khan, Hooghly in his affidavit has also stated that the rest of the work i.e., 40% of the work was completed by them under the supervision of Mr Sanjoy Ghosh and Mr Sanjay Babu had repaired the damage done by the miscreants. In that affidavit Jakir Khan stated that Sanjay Babu frequently visited the place and supervised their work and the whole work was completed under the supervision of Sanjay Ghosh. The District Forum after going through the evidence brought on record dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 10.11.2005 while affirming the orders of the District Forum held the respondents responsible for reneging from his position and putting the appellants in great inconvenience and financial loss at this retired age by a ''trivial ground '' and hence modified the District Forum ''s order to the extent that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the financial loss, harassment and loss of health due to breach of contract on the part of the respondent. Hence, this present revision petition.

WE have heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and also the counsel for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case carefully. Undisputed facts of which are that more than 60% of the work has been completed by the respondent and the respondent admitted that he had received Rs.6,10,000/- from the petitioner. Therefore 60% of the payment has been made for the 60% of the work. The respondent did not receive the total agreed amount of Rs.10,45,738/-. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent did not complete the work after receiving the full amount. Therefore, no deficiency of service is established. The two affidavits have also been placed on record by the respondents to substantiate that the work had been obstructed by miscreants.

IN the above circumstances, we find no jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference. The State Commission has rightly observed that the respondent completed 60% of the work, he had also not received not more than 60% of the estimated cost of the building from the petitioner and as such there cannot be any question of making further payment by the respondent to the petitioner or vice-versa. It was on the same ground the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. The State Commission has rightly awarded the petitioner a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of ''Consumer Welfare Fund '' as per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. List on 2nd May 2013 for compliance.