MUSTAFA Vs. SULAIMAN VAYALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitioner herein is the complainant in Dispute No. 6 of 2000 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry.

(2.) THE revision petitioner/complainant has filed a complaint under section 18 read with sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent/opposite party inter-alia stating that the respondent/opposite party did the construction work without any care and diligence and the work was given to him since the respondent/opposite party is an architect and thinking that he is an expert builder. On verification it was found that the construction was substandard and that money was spent like anything etc.

(3.) IT is the specific case of the revision petitioner/complainant that RCC roof of the first floor is leaking on all sides and the scene is very pathetic and from the sight itself, it will be revealed that the intention of the respondent/opposite party was to spindle money from the revision petitioner/complainant by making construction investing lesser amount and when complained about the leakage, the respondent/opposite party stated the same will be cured and now, the leakages exposes its maximum height and that the leakage cannot be cured or rectified and because of the carelessness and the way of dealing with the work, the leakage took place and therefore, the revision petitioner/complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards damages on the above count. It is the further stand of the revision petitioner/complainant that as per the calculation, the total amount payable to the respondent/opposite party is only Rs. 6,38,650/- and the amount calculated by the respondent/opposite party is Rs. 8,70,000/- and when the revision petitioner/complainant questioned about the veracity of the account, the respondent/opposite party discontinued the work and the revision petitioner/complainant was perforced to complete the work through others since the revision petitioner/complainant was very much in need of occupation of the house. The revision petitioner/complainant kept all accounts regarding the work done by him through other contractor with corresponding skills.