KULDEEP CHANDRA BHASIN Vs. SHAMBHU PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the order dated 23.4.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 56 of 2007. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.5,50,000 within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the opposite party shall also pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment. The District Forum has also permitted the opposite party to take away the building material lying in the complainant's premises.

(2.) THE facts of the case, inbrief, are that the complainant -Sh. Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin assigned a contract for civil work in his house situated at Rishikesh to Sh. Shambhu Paswan -opposite party. The work included repairing and renovation of the existing structure and some new construction of rooms, toilets, etc. in the first floor. The details of the work and specification in respect of material to be used, were settled with a written mutual agreement dated 15.3.2005. It was also agreed upon that the work would be completed by 31.12.2005. As per the agreement, the complainant had to pay sum of Rs. 70,000 for the repairing and renovation work in the ground floor andsum of Rs. 4,80,000 for the construction in the first floor. Since the complainant generally resides in England, he had authorised one of his relatives for making the payment. The opposite party, somehow, received the full payment of Rs.5,50,000 after completing the work. When the complainant came back to India in February, 2006, he found that the repairing and renovation work and also the new construction were not as per the agreement. The material used in the work was of inferior quality and, thus, the opposite party had made deficiency in service. When the complainant pointed out these defects, the opposite party assured to remove them, but he did not do so in spite of giving a notice in this respect. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum,

(3.) THE District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above terms. Not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 78 of 2009, challenging the order of the District Forum, on the ground that the amount awarded is inadequate and also that the District Forum has failed to consider the mental agony suffered by him. The opposite party, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed First Appeal No.83 of 2009, praying therein to set aside the order, as the District Forum has failed to appreciate all the facts of the case in right perspective. Since both these appeals arise out of the same order, these are being disposed of by this common order.