Case: Sri Khokan Maji Vs Sri Lalit Mukhi S/o Late Gulab Mukhi. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Judges | A. Chakrabarti, J. (President), A.K. Ray and Silpi Majumder, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Laws |
| Judgement Date | January 29, 2010 |
| Court | West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
A.K. Ray, Member, (West Bengal)
-
The Appellant has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 15.7.09 passed in case no 37 of 2007 by the District Forum, Purulia, wherein the complaint was allowed on contest against the OP/Appellant without cost. The OP/Appellant was directed to refund Rs. 2,57,400/- with interest @ 9% p.a from January 2008 till full payment within 30 days from the date of the order. The said OP was also directed to pay Rs. 95,000/-as compensation within the aforesaid period failing which the Complainant would be at liberty to put the decree in execution.
-
The case in brief is that the Complainant, a retired employee of the Coal India purchased a plot of land on 28.12.04 at Panchudanga, Adra in the District of Purulia for construction of a dwelling house; in May 06 the Complainant entered into a verbal agreement with the OP for construction of his building on certain terms and conditions. Rs. 600/- per sft for construction of the ground floor and Rs. 450/- per sft for construction of the first floor were the fixed rates. Payment was to be made in instalments. An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid to the OP/Appellant on 26.7.06 as first instalment. Rs. 4,50,000/ was paid on 2.11.06 as second instalment. OP issued money receipts to the Complainant after receiving the payment. The Complainant was handed over possession of the ground floor when it was completed in July 2007. OP gave assurance that construction of the first floor would be taken up shortly. During the rainy season the Complainant noticed certain defects in the construction resulting in damp/moist due seepage of to rain water through the roof. The OP did not start the construction work of the first floor for which he was given Rs. 2,57,000/- @ Rs. 450 per sft. It was deficiency and unfair trade practice on his part. The Complainant, as a result moved the Forum below seeking certain relief's.
-
The OP/ Appellant contested the case by filing written version wherein he denied all the material allegations. He also denied that he was not a building contractor rather he was a supplier of building materials and he supplied materials during construction of the house. He admitted receiving an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- out of which initially Rs. 3,00,000/- and subsequently Rs. 1,50,000/- were received by him. He however issued a Kancha receipt for Rs. 4,50,000/- as he was told that the receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- given to him in the first phase would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial