JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent / complainant for construction of a two-storied house for her. As per the agreement between the parties, the complainant was to pay Rs.850/- per sq. ft. for the ground floor and Rs.750/- per sq. for the first floor construction. The payment for the ground floor was to be made in seven installments whereas the payment for the first floor was to be made in six installments as recorded in the agreement itself. The construction was to be completed within five months from 14.11.2013. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner did not complete the work and the work executed by him was also defective. The complainant therefore got the work completed / rectified at a cost of Rs.2,07,138/-. Thereafter, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation, interest etc. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, who inter-alia alleged that there was delay on the part of the complainant n making payment and thereafter, she herself had got the work stopped. This was also the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.93,989/- was still payable to him by the complainant. 2. The District Forum ruled in favour of the complainant and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,138/- to the complainant, that being the amount spent by him in getting the construction completed, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order. As rent quantified at Rs.1,35,000/- was also awarded to the complainant, along with another sum of Rs.30,000/- which she had paid to the labour. Rs.4,00,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant, along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 02.11.2017, the State Commission modified the order passed by the District Forum by directing the petitioner to pay Rs.99,000/- as against Rs.1,35,000/- towards rental and Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. The direction for payment of Rs.2,07,138/- however was upheld. The direction for payment of Rs.30,000/- towards the labour charges was set aside. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. Though, it is alleged by the petitioner that the complainant had defaulted in making payment of the installments, no evidence was produced by him to prove that there was any default on the part of the complainant in making payment of any installment, despite the construction having reached the level linked to the payment of that installment. Therefore, I find no merit in the aforesaid contention of the petitioner As far as the payment of rent is concerned that has been awarded only for eleven months, which considering the delay on the part of the petitioner, cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. In fact, if the direction for payment of rental is substituted by a direction for payment of interest on the amount paid by the complainant to the petitioner, the quantum would be higher than the amount awarded by the State Commission. Therefore, the aforesaid direction also does not call for any interference. 5. The complainant had produced the photographs as well as the technical report before the District Forum to prove that the construction being incomplete besides being defective. No photographs were produced by the petition to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant and in fact, this was not even disputed by the petitioner that the construction was not complete in all respects when the work was stopped by him. 6. As far as the direction for payment of compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/- is concerned, in my view, considering that the State Commission has awarded compensation in the form of rent for eleven months, there was no justification for awarding a separate amount as compensation. This is more so, when the order passed by the State Commission also requires the petitioner to pay interest on the amount spent by the complaint on completion / rectification of the construction. 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is modified only to the extent that the petitioner need not pay the compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/-. He however, will have to pay the rest of the amount awarded by the state Commission. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. |
