GOPIKISHAN Vs. RAJESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under Sec. 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dtd. 30/9/2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.320 of 2019 in which order dtd. 9/1/2019 of Aurangabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 433 of 2018 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dtd. 30/9/2019 of the State Commission.

(2.) While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant in the said FA No. 320/2019 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent was OP before the District Forum in the CC no. 433 of 2018. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 5/3/2020. RP has been filed with a delay of 57 days. Delay in filing the RP is condoned after considering the reasons for delay / grounds of condonation stated in condonation of delay application.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant sold his old house of his village and deposited that amount with the bank in fixed deposit. The complainant purchased two plots of 600 sq.ft. area in Mukundwadi area for building of house and enquired with Dipak Patni, owner of his house regarding a builder for construction of house. He introduced the complainant with his friend Rajesh Shashikant Trivedi, the OP. There was meeting with OP and in the said meeting, there was a contract between the parties for building of two houses for consideration of Rs.5,51,000.00. As per the said contract, OP agreed to build two houses with basic amenities within two months. Complainant was required to pay the amount in instalments. The OP carried out construction of the slab and brick construction work and suddenly stopped construction work. When the complainant enquired, the OP replied that due to rainy season, there is no road for approaching to labor and work would be commenced in few days. Even after few days, the OP did not commence work of house and despite making several requests, the OP did not complete the construction work Even the OP has not maintained the quality of construction and expenditure of Rs.2.00 to 2.25 lacs has been incurred upon it. The OP has taken excess amount of Rs.4.25 lacs from the complainant. The complainant spent all the available amount with him. Being aggrieved of the said act of the OP, the complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dtd. 9/10/2019 partly allowed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide order dtd. 30/9/2019 partly allowed the Appeal. Therefore, the Complainant is before the Commission now in the present RP.