DUNI CHAND GOEL Vs. ASHA TANDON
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Duni Chand Goel
Click here to view full judgement.
ARUN KUMAR GOEL -
(1.) WHILE allowing Complaint No. 485/2003 filed by the respondents, District Forum, Shimla has ordered the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 to them with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 23.9.2003 till realization, plus Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and pain along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Hence this appeal by the appellant.
(2.) FACTS as they emerge from the record are, that the respondents orally contracted with the appellant for construction at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,35,000. He started construction of retaining wall of their house. For this purpose a sum of Rs. 60,000 was paid by the respondents to the appellant by means of two cheques. This retaining wall gave way soon after its completion on 1.8.2003 per them. According to respondents material used while constructing the retaining wall was of poor quality and construction was also not as per prescribed norms and standards. In these circumstances, they called upon the appellant to either reconstruct the wall or to refund the amount. He did nothing. This resulted in filing of the complaint.
(3.) WHEN put to notice, while admitting having undertaken the work of constructing the retaining wall it was pleaded by the appellant, that out of the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid in advance the respondents received back Rs. 10,000 in cash, therefore, payment of Rs. 40,000 as alleged was not admitted. Similarly, allegations of the respondents regarding material of poor quality having been used by the appellant were also denied. On the other hand it was pleaded by him, that the construction of one phase of the retaining wall was as per specification was done by him till 13.4.2003, and he further continued the work between 24.5.2003 to 14.6.2003. Work of construction of entire retaining wall, as also digging of pits for two RCC pillars was also done by 14.6.2003. As already noted against the payment of Rs. 60,000, as alleged by the respondents, receipt of Rs. 50,000 is admitted by the appellant. As against this amount, work of the value of Rs. 67,000 had been undertaken by the appellant, thus a sum of Rs. 17,000 was payable by the respondents.
Entire case of the respondents is based on the fact, that the construction work carried out by the appellant was not of proper specification, and poor quality material was used in it. As a consequence of it, the retaining wall gave way.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.