PRAMOD KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA vs NAZIR KHAN

THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 16.4.2002 in Complaint No. 609/1998 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed.

UNDISPUTABLY the complainant/appellant entered into an agreement with the opposite party/respondent for construction of first floor of his house. The total cost of the construction was agreed to be Rs. 2.50 lacs. Written agreement was executed by the parties in the above regard. It is not in dispute that a total sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs was paid by the complainant/appellant to the respondent towards cost of construction. According to the complainant, the respondent did not execute the construction as per agreement and that the work executed by the respondent was only worth Rs. 88,000/- against Rs. 1.50 lacs paid by the complainant. The complainant, therefore, prayed that Rs. 62,000/- be directed to be returned by the respondent with interest thereon.

The respondent resisted the complaint. According to him other work besides the agreed work of construction was got done from him by the respondent. The complainant has not paid the full amount spent by the respondent in the said construction. It was, therefore, prayed that the complainant was not entitled to any relief.

DISTRICT Forum in the impugned order held that the appellant had got additional work executed by the respondent. It was also observed in the impugned order that the complainant has failed to show as to which work agreed to be done by the respondent has not been executed by him. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. It may be noticed that the parties had agreed for the construction of first floor of the house. The works to be executed by the respondent, were specified in the agreement executed between the parties. The complainant had filed the report dated 20.11.1998 of one Deepak Shirke, Architect and Engineer. From the said report, it appears that some extension was also made in the ground floor. The total value of the construction was calculated at Rs. 3,13,000/-. It was further mentioned in the said report that the cost of construction in the first floor and ground floor was Rs. 88,000/-. However, as against this, the respondent has placed on record the report of T.S. Dewagan, Architect and Registered valuer, who has valued the cost of construction at Rs. 1,74,000/-. Thus, there is considerable difference in the two reports, regarding the cost of construction executed by respondent. Moreover, as noticed by the District Forum also, the report of Deepak Shirke also shows that there was construction made in the ground floor. While the admitted position of the case is that as per the agreement between the parties the construction was to be done on the first floor only. Thus the complaint of the respondent, that some additional work was also got executed by the complainant over and above the agreed terms of construction, appears to be justified. It is not possible in these summary proceedings to assess and come to a definite conclusion regarding the cost of construction carried out by the respondent.

IN the circumstances, we are of the opinion that complainant not only got some additional construction done by the respondent in the ground floor of the house but he has not been able to satisfactorily establish that construction was not to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/- paid by him. Hence complainant/appellant could not succeed. His complaint was justifiably dismissed by the District Forum. No interference in the said order is called for. However, the complainant may pursue such other remedy, as may be available to him, if he is so advised. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the liberty to the complainant/appellant, to pursue such legal remedy as may be available to him. The cost of this appeal, in the circumstances shall be borne by the parties, as incurred. Appeal dismissed.