S.C.Vyas, President - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 24.12.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in complaint case No. 112/07, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground that the case involves such a question of Facts and Law which can only be adjudicated by detailed evidence, after elaborate enquiry, which can only be done by a Civil Court.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is having a house at village Lingiadih. He had given a contract to the respondent for construction of 1st Floor and other portions of the house, as per estimate and map. Contract was in writing and was signed by the parties. Later on a dispute has arisen between the parties in respect of work completed by the respondent and ordered by the appellant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and filed complaint, claiming compensation. Whereas the respondent in the written version has averred that he had done more than 50% works, as per the agreement and Rs. 65,000 which was spent by him, has not been paid by the complainant mala fidely, so remaining works could not be completed. It has also been alleged that in the meantime the complainant wanted alteration in the drawing and design of the house and directed to perform some more works, other than the agreed work which was the cause of dispute between the parties. Documents have also been filed by both parties in support of their contentions.
(3.) IN the impugned order the District Forum has expressed its view that the dispute between the parties is in respect of written agreement and as per the agreement 1733 sq.ft. construction at the 1st floor, along with porch, was to be performed by the respondent. After construction the complainant demanded for fresh estimate regarding construction of some additional work and that was the cause of dispute between the parties regarding construction, as the complainant himself was deviating from the original contract and was demanding some additional construction work. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.;