VIPAN KUMAR & OTHERS Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainants have approached this Commission, by means of the present complaint, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking directions to the opposite party; "a) to refund a sum of Rs.21,61,560/ -, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which amount of money, he has allegedly received in excess of the work executed by him; b) to pay Rs.18.00 lacs, as compensation for loss of income; c) to pay Rs.5.00 lacs, on account of compensation for mental torture, harassment; and d) to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/ - on account of litigation expenses."

(2.) Complainants' mother late Asha Rani and her two sons, Vipan Kumar & Ripan Kumar, complainants No.1 & 2, wanted to set up a marriage palace in the periphery of Una town. They submitted project report, Annexure C - 7, to Kangra Cooperative Primary Agriculture Rural Development Bank Ltd., Dharamshala, for seeking a loan. Loan was sanctioned in their favour. Thereafter they approached the opposite party, who is engaged in the business of construction of marriage palaces and providing other items like crockery, furnishing etc. for running the palace. An agreement was executed on 25.03.2011, copy Annexure C -1. The job was undertaken to be completed by the opposite party within three months. A sum of Rs.35.00 lacs, was to be paid to him in all for completing all the works and providing furniture, cutlery, utensils etc. A sum of Rs.1.00 lac was paid by way of advance. Work was started on 27.03.2011.

(3.) According to the complainants, Asha Rani fell sick sometime in the month of May, 2011, and they got busy in getting her treated at PGI. Opposite party did not do any work in May & June, 2011 on the pretext that labour was not available, as all of his labourers had gone to their native places. By mid July, 2011, opposite party allegedly completed 50% of the aluminum work and 80% of ducting and GI sheets work. Mother of the complainants expired and they remained busy in performing her last rites, because of which they could not supervise the same. Sometime in the month of September, 2011, opposite party abandoned the work and when approached to restart the work, he claimed that already he had done the job, equivalent to the amount of money paid to him and that he would be doing the rest of the work, if more money was paid to him.