DILIP VISHRAM JADHAV Vs. RAM VASANT MONDKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint, it is alleged that the Opposite Party is a contractor engaging in the work of construction of house. The complainant is a resident of Pali in Ratnagiri District and had hired the service of the Opposite Party for construction of his bungalow. The Opposite Party had executed an agreement dated 29.1.1992 in which he agreed to render the necessary service of construction of bungalow, of the complainant. At the time of execution of the agreement Rs.50,000/- were paid in cash by the complainant to the Opposite Party towards consideration. Similarly, the complainant alleged that subsequently he paid Rs.30,000/- on 23.2.1992, Rs.20,000/- on 29.2.1993 and Rs.1,25,000/- on 24.4.1992. Thus, according to complainant he paid to the Opposite Party the total amount of Rs.2,75,000/- for carrying out the construction of his bungalow. The complainant further alleged that after execution of the agreement the Opposite Party did not make construction in a good condition and complete, as a result of which on 13.6.1992 the incomplete construction of bungalow made by the Opposite Party collapsed and the complainant suffered total loss. The complainant has submitted with his complaint the photographs of the collapsed house. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the complainant alleged that the promised service which was agreed by the Opposite Party by an agreement dated 29.1.1992 has been totally deficient and therefore, he has claimed the refund of Rs.2,75,000/- with the interest and Rs.15,000/- towards compensation.

(2.) Notice under Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 dated 18.5.1993 was sent to the Opposite Party by registered post which he received on 11.6.1993. The postal acknowledgement bearing the signature of the Opposite Party indicates the receipt of said notice by him, is on record. In the said notice it was informed to the Opposite Party that the complaint has been listed on 14.7.1993 for hearing. On 14.7.1993 both the parties were present. However, the Opposite Party did not file his written version, despite the receipt of notice, under Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Thereafter the complaint was adjourned to 13.9.1993 when both the parties were present and were directed to file affidavits and the documents if any, and the case was fixed on 4.11.1993 for final hearing. On 4.11.1993 the complainant appearing with Shri Bafna, Advocate and the Opposite Party was present in person. Inspite of the clear instructions given to the Opposite Party, till the date of final hearing i. e. on 4.11.1993 the Opposite Party did not file his written version, when this Commission repeatedly asked the Opposite Party as to whether he wanted to file the written version. He stated that he does not want to file any written version and therefore, we heard the arguments and closed the complaint for order.

(3.) The complainant has filed with his complaint copy of the agreement dated 29.1.92 and copy of complaint made to the Police of Ratnagiri. Similarly, the complainant has filed the receipt of payment to the Opposite Party and photographs of the collapsed house. From these documents placed on record the allegations made by the complainant stand corroborated. As against this, the Opposite Party refused to file any written version despite the notice under Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also despite repeated asking. We have heard the complainant through his Advocate and the opposite party in person. The opposite party has given in writing on 4.11.1993 that he has been heard in this complaint. We fail to understand the stand taken by the Opposite Party not to file the written version. In fact, there is nothing on record from the Opposite Party to controvert the allegations contained in the complaint. Nothing has been submitted by the Opposite Party either in writing or orally to deny the allegations made by the complainant. Under these circumstances, we find that the complainant has proved his allegations on the basis of the documentary evidence. We have therefore no other alternative but to allow this complaint. Hence we pass the following order: order complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party shall pay to the complainant Rs.2,75,000/-towards compensation for the loss suffered by him. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order.