PANNABEN PADAMSI ASAR Vs. VILAS RAMDAS BORANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed against order dated 11.4.2011, passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurngabad (for short 'State Commission ') vide which appeal of the petitioner/complainant against order dated 9.8.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nandurbar (for short 'District Forum ') was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner/complainant, who is a Doctor by profession, purchased a plot in Vardhaman Nagar Hosing Society. After getting sanctioned the plan for construction by Municipal Council, she approached respondent/opposite party, a contractor for construction of house. Petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent on 8.11.1997. It is agreed that petitioner is to pay Rs.3,40,000.00 in total for the said construction. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent recovered amount of Rs.3,88,354.00 when it was decided that amount of Rs.3,40,000.00 is only to be paid. Though the amount as agreed was recovered by the respondent, but the construction was not completed. Therefore, petitioner filed (complaint case No.7/2000) which was decided in her favour by District Forum on 6.11.2003. During pendency of said complaint it was found by the petitioner that though construction was said to be completed it was not as per quality expected and agreed by her. Therefore, civil engineer Shri Ansari was appointed to inspect the said house. Accordingly, report of Shri Ansari was produced before the Forum. But as the complaint was for the excess amount and non completion of construction within stipulated period, the District Forum did not find anything about defective construction in report of Shri.Ansari. After taking possession of house, it was found that construction is of very inferior quality. Many defects had been committed by the respondent such as, the flooring was not in good, levelling was not done properly, walls were separated by slab etc. Petitioner approached Civil Engineer Shri.Prasad Kulkarni at Dhule for inspecting the construction of her house. Shri Kulkarni, accordingly inspected the house and gave report in respect of same. It is alleged by the petitioner that according to said report the defects in construction were beyond repair. Therefore entire house is to be demolished or rebuilt. It is alleged that petitioner was to run pathology laboratory in the said house and was to use as residential house also. But due to the defective construction she could not shift in her house. Therefore, she suffered professional loss also. On 11.1.2005, petitioner issued legal notice to respondent. Said notice was not replied by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner approached the District Forum and demanded Rs.3 lakhs for reconstruction of house and Rs.2 lakhs for mental agony and financial loss with 18% interest.

(3.) DISTRICT Forum, in its order held that in the absence of expert report about defective construction, complaint is not maintainable and it dismissed the complaint.