B.K.PAL PROFESSOR (RETIRED) Vs. TENZIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present complaint has been filed on the pleadings that the complainant is owner of land in village Dhanda, Tehsil and District Shimla, where he proposed to raise three -storeyed building as per Plan vide Annexure C -1. For this purpose, he hired the services of the opposite party who is a builder -cum -contractor. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between them, rate for constructed area in all respects was fixed at Rs. 500/ - per sq. Ft. Similarly, it was agreed that the rate for open terrace area would be Rs. 275/ - per sq ft, while the rate for ground floor area excluding finishing was agreed at Rs. 200/ -per sq ft. It was further agreed that the total cost of the entire work should not exceed Rs. 17.00 lacs. It was further agreed that an advance of Rs. 2.00 lacs shall be paid by the complainant to the opposite party in advance, while the mode and schedule of payments was also agreed as per the contents of Annexure C -2 dated 1.7.1997, stipulating that the construction would be completed within 8 months from the date of execution of the said agreement i.e. 1.7.1997, meaning thereby that the same should be completed by the end of December, 1998.

(2.) According to the complainant, the opposite party did not complete the construction or hand over the possession of the constructed house till the time of filing of the complaint on 20.7.2000. It is further alleged that the complainant had strictly complied with his part of the terms of the agreement by making payment of a total amount of Rs. 14,52,000/ - before 24.7.1999 and only a balance of Rs. 2,50,000/ - remains to be paid, although not even the one story has been completed. It is stated that he got the rough assessment of the constructed area made from a reputed Architect Engineer/Interior Designer of Shimla as per the details vide Annexure C -3. A legal notice dated 4.5.2000 was also issued to the opposite party vide copy Annexure C -4 but to no avail. Hence, the complaint with the prayer that a total amount of Rs. 8,15,000/ - with future interest may be awarded. The allegations in the complaint are duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant

(3.) During the course of the proceedings of this complaint, the opposite party had appeared in person on 16.11.2000 on our direction. His plea was that he was ready to executed the work allotted to him by the complainant but the delay has occurred on account of his repeated interference. He further gave an undertaking, on the assurance of the complainant that there will be no interference on his part, that he would complete the construction within one month. Ultimately, nothing came out of this offer and on 10.7.2001, reply to the complaint was filed, to which the complainant also filed a rejoinder. Thereafter, a number of opportunities were allowed to the opposite party to file his evidence, the complainant having filed his evidence at the very first opportunity, and he filed his evidence on 14.12.2001. By order dated 26.8.2002, when the opposite party absented himself, there was even no representation on his behalf by Counsel, the application for appointment of Local Commissioner of the complainant was accepted and Shri H.S. Bist, a retired Executive Engineer, HP. P.W.D., was appointed as such. He was directed to go to the spot, carry out a thorough inspection and then submit his report within two months.