TULSI PRASAD SINGH Vs. RASHMI SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Raipur (in short, 'State Commission') in Appeal Nos. FA/2019/171 of 2019 and FA/2019/179 of 2019 dtd. 21/6/2019 dismissing the appeal against the order of the District Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh (in short, 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 17/248 of 2017 dtd. 7/2/2019.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the revision petitioner are that the petitioner has been directed to pay the respondent Rs.4,95,982.00 towards los caused due to incomplete work of the flat along with interest @ 6% from the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 10/4/2017 within 45 days, failing which @ 9%; Rs.50,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000.00 as litigation expenses in Consumer Complaint No. CC/17/248 of 2017 by the District Forum, Durg vide its order dtd. 7/2/2019. His appeals before the State Commission FA/2019/171 and FA/2019/179 were disallowed while reducing the compensation for mental agony to Rs.25,000.00 vide order dtd. 21/6/2019.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the order of the District Forum is contrary to facts and law and that the State Commission's order has not adjudicated his appeal on merits. The facts of the dispute are that the respondent had engaged the petitioner through an agreement dtd. 19/6/2015 to execute certain civil works in his flat allotted by the Chhattisgarh Housing Board at Taalpuri, Bhilai at an estimated cost of Rs.8,21,000.00. The petitioner executed the works except white washing estimated at Rs.10,000.00 and handed over the flat with the keys to the respondent on 10/2/2017. The respondent filed a police complaint and also issued a legal notice alleging deficiency in service. The respondent approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service as works agreed upon had not been completed. The petitioner contested this claim stating that all items of work agreed had been completed and cited the illness of his sister which required him to attend to her medical treatment in hospital as a result of which the whitewashing could not be completed. The petitioner relied upon the report of architect Shri M.K. Yadava of Shrishti Associates to buttress his assertion that the work agreed upon had not been completed in full except for the value of Rs.3,15,018.00 and charging Rs.4,95,982.00 of the contracted amount as a fraudulent charge. The respondent's consumer complaint before the District Forum came to be allowed vide order dtd. 17/7/2018 as below: