AKBAR KHAN Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been preferred by the appellant -opposite party against the order dated 18.04.2009 passed by the Members of the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 51 of 2008, whereby the Members allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - towards litigation expenses and also directed that after seeking permission from Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar by complainant, the opposite party shall complete the construction work within three months from the date of permission and shall deliver it to the complainant, failing which the opposite parry shall pay the total amount received by him from the complainant along with the interest @ 9% per annum, pendent lite and future. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,500/ - to the complainant within one month from the date of order. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant -Sh. Vinod Kumar is a resident of Vishnu Garden, Kankhal, Tehsil & District Haridwar and an agreement was made with the opposite party to construct a house on a plot measuring area 320.78 square meter, which is situated in Khasra No. 548/1, whose covered area is 561.236 square meter. Both the parties had put their signatures on agreement in presence of witnesses. The opposite party received Rs. 4,00,000/ - through cheques on 14.11.2006. This agreement was made for total cost of Rs. 44,08,349/ - @ 730/ - per square feet covered area. It was agreed on 14.11.2006 that the construction work shall be completed by the opposite party within six months. The complainant had paid Rs. 22,00,000/ - to the opposite party till 18.05.2007, but the opposite party did not complete even half of the construction work till end of the time agreed between the parties. The opposite party violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement:. The opposite party stopped the construction work in the month of September, 2007 and intentionally delayed the construction work. When the complainant asked about the delay of work, the opposite party challenged him and advised to go in the court. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, that the opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 12,00,000/ - to the complainant, which had been paid by him to the opposite party, Rs. 5,00,000/ - for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/ - towards litigation expenses.

(2.) THE opposite party filed the written statement before the District Forum that the complainant has wrongly mentioned the covered area of the plot in his consumer complaint. The complainant is not owner of the plot in question, therefore, he is not a consumer in the eye of law and he has no right to file the consumer complaint against the opposite party. The complainant has concealed the facts regarding the construction work and he has not come with clean hands. The matter regarding this construction is pending before the Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar. The Haridwar Development Authority has scaled this disputed construction. That it was the liability of the complainant to get the map passed by Haridwar Development Authority. Despite request by the opposite party, the complainant did not get the map passed by the Haridwar Development Authority, even then the opposite party continued the construction work. During this period, the Secretary of Haridwar Development Authority issued notice to the complainant as well as the opposite party, even then the complainant did nothing in the office of Haridwar Development Authority and pressurized the opposite party to complete the construction work. Therefore on 12.09.2007, the Haridwar Development Authority sealed the construction site and a case No. /343/2006 -07 is still pending before the Haridwar Development Authority. The complainant did nothing in this case, therefore, the construction work stopped. Due to the negligence and not taking interest in the case pending before the Haridwar Development Authority, the opposite party is facing a great loss, for which the complainant is responsible. In the said case, pending before the Haridwar Development Authority, the complainant as well as the opposite party are the parties. The opposite party has suffered irreparable loss and caused mental agony due to the pendency of the case before the Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.