MALVINDER KAUR Vs. PALLAV MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the complainant who is in appeal before us. Her complaint for alleged deficiency in service and faulty contruction against the respondent, architect and constractor was dismissed by the State Commission.

(2.) APPELLANT engaged the services of the respondent for construction of her house. An agreement dated 4.4.1998 was entered into, though according to the complainant construction had started in February itself. It was agreed that construction was to be completed within six months time and the rate of construction was fixed at Rs. 400/ - per sq. ft. for the main building and Rs. 650/ - per sq. ft. for the annexe and garage. Complaint was that respondent did not prepare the blue print of the house to be constructed and without that he went ahead with the construction. By December, 1998 only roof of the second floor was cast which required 10 days curing period. In the meanwhile complainant left for Delhi and when she returned she found that respondent had abadoned the work altogether. He had removed all his equipment and labour and a small hut constructed to store cement etc. was demolished and the goods removed. It is alleged that these bricks had been paid for by the complainant. Disputes started between the parties as to the level upto which construction had been completed and the amount due to the respondent. It was the case of the respondent that he stopped further construction as he was not being paid as per the agreement and the stages of construction completed by him. He alleged that a sum of Rs. 17.5 lakhs was due to him. According to the complainant this figure was totally baseless and had no correlation with the work done. It was on 23.2.1999 that respondent gave estimate of the work done by him and amounts due to him. Complainant says that she has already paid Rs. 13,15,000/ - and she alleged that respondent wanted her to pay the balance amount over and above this figure. Complainant also pointed out discrepancy in the measurement of the area so constructed by the respondent. She engaged the services of M/s. G.B. Singh & Associates, Architects, Chartered Engineers, Consultants, Registered Valuers and Surveyors who assessed the value of the work done by the respondent and they arrived at a figure of Rs. 7,94,872/ -. M/s. G.B. Singh & Associates also fixed an amount of Rs. 95,385/ - as the architect fee for the work done by the respondent. Thus the total value of the work done by the respondent according to the complainant was Rs. 8,90,000/ - and she having paid Rs. 13,15,000/ - wanted refund of Rs. 4,25,000/ - from the respondent.

(3.) ,25,000/ - (b) Compensation for loss or damages suffered due to the negligence of opposite party Rs. 60,000/ - (c) Compensation for harrasment, mental agony and incon -venience Rs. 50,000/ - (d) Compensation for repair of floor of garage Rs. 35,000/ - (e) Interest on the amount of relief claim from the date of dispute upto the date of payment @ 24% (f) Costs (Legal expenses) Rs.