CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO. 1477 OF 2008 Date of filing : 24/11/2008

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 20 OF 2008 Date of order : 20/07/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : RATNAGIRI



Shri Swapnil Vilas Shinde

R/o. At Post Devrukh, Shivaji Chowk,

Tal. Sangameshwar, Dist. Ratnagiri. … Appellant/org. complainant

V/s.

1. Ibrahim Ahmed Gadkari

2. Aslam Ahmed Gadkari

3. Salim Ahmed Gadkari

R/o. At Post Hativ, Tal. Sangameshwar,

Dist. Ratnagiri. … Respondents/org. O.Ps.


Corum : Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present: Mr.M.G. Barve, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms.P.V. Salvi, Advocate for the respondents.

- : ORDER :-
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

This appeal arises out of order/award dated 22/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.20/2008 Shri Swapnil Vilas Shinde V/s. Ibrahim Ahmed Gadkari & Ors. by District Consumer Forum Ratnagiri. Complaint was partly allowed, but not satisfied with the compensation granted, complainant himself preferred this appeal.

Admittedly, complainant had purchased shop Nos.10 & 11 situated on the ground floor as per registered Sale Deed dated 23/03/2007. It is alleged by the complainant that he had paid sum of Rs.6,25,000/- more than the agreed purchase price to opposite parties from whom those shops were purchased. Said refund is claimed under the consumer complaint. It is also alleged by the complainant that in the following monsoon after the purchase, due to bad quality material used, there was seepage of water as a result of which cloths and garments stored in the shops as well as the furniture got damaged. He sustained loss of Rs.83,968/- for the cloths and garments and estimated Rs.2,19,570/- towards renovation of the furniture and shops. He also claimed that for renovation work for about 60 days shops were remained closed for which loss of Rs.79,620/-. He claimed that amount along with above referred damages i.e. damages to the garments and expected interior work. He also claimed Rs.50,449/- towards unexecuted work as per the agreement, which inter alia includes expenses for re-flooring with ceramics tiles, painting the shops as well as providing electric points. Thus, in all he had claimed Rs.11,38,607/- as compensation on the above referred counts. Apart from this, complainant also claimed Rs.1 Lakh compensation for mental and physical torture and direction for proper water proofing and making provision for parking and common toilet and also repairing the cracks developed in the walls. Consumer complaint is filed accordingly.

Respondents/opposite parties appeared and denied the claim in toto. They denied any payment was received by them. They further denied that the work of the shops was of inferior quality and as a result of which the complainant sustained damages as alleged.

Forum below partly allowed the complaint and awarded claim of Rs.45,969/- towards unexecuted work of flooring, painting and Rs.20,554/- for completing additional work by way of protection as per commissioner’s report. Forum below also awarded Rs.3,000/- as cost. However, not satisfied with the amount awarded, this appeal is preferred by the complainant.

We heard Mr.M.G. Barve, Advocate for the appellant and Ms.P.V. Salvi, Advocate for the respondents. Perused the record.

At the first instance, we find that what has been awarded by the Forum below is quite more than satisfactory for the complainant considering the material and evidence on record. As far as claim to the extent of excess payment is made as it cannot be clubbed in a category of deficiency in service since there is a dispute between the parties as to what is the agreed price of the property. Such dispute is also not raised at the time of execution of registered Sale Deed or soon thereafter. Referring to the Commissioner’s Report dated 14/07/2008 (Marked as Exhibit-37 by the Forum below), the Commissioner who is a Civil Engineer of the level of Sub-Divisional Engineer of P.W.D. did not say that the work is of sub-standard quality or that any sub-standard material is used while constructing the shops in question. Even the case of the complainant as to the seepage due to bad quality of work is ruled out by the Commissioner. Commissioner did not give any blame to the quality of the work. However, he has suggested few things for better protection of the property in his own wisdom. Forum below granted claim of Rs.20,554/- though it does not stand in conformity with any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Since, there is no appeal preferred by O.Ps. we need to make no further comments on it.

Since, the complainant failed to establish that due to bad quality of the construction, there was seepage of water damaging his garments or cloths and the furniture, there arise no case for granting compensation for the same. In spite of this for the renovation work undertaken by the complainant at his own pleasure, Forum below generous to grant Rs.45,969/-. Certainly, therefore, it is not the case for any enhancement of compensation as tried to be claimed by filing this appeal by the complainant. Thus, we find appeal is devoid of any substance and pass the following order :-

-: ORDER :-

1. Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S. P. Lale) (S. R. Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member