ABHIJEET MITRA Vs. RANA CHANDRAMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.6.2004 in Complaint No. 226/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the 'District Forum' for short) directing that the appellant shall construct the boundary wall and shall execute the flooring work and repair the cracked pillars of the dairy of the complainant failing which he shall pay to the complainant/respondent Rs. 31,200 with interest @ 6% per annum. It was also directed that cost of Rs. 500 shall also be paid by the appellant to the complainant.

(2.) INDISPUTABLY the complainant/respondent Rana Chandramohan Singh runs a dairy at Rajnandgoan. The opposite party/appellant herein is a contractor and undertakes building work. It is also not in dispute that, complainant/respondent with an intention to make certain construction in his dairy, contacted appellant Abhijeet Mitra, who submitted an estimate dated 15.11.2000 for the work to be executed. The complainant thereafter directed the appellant to execute the work. It is also not in dispute that the complainant paid to the appellant total amount of Rs. 50,020 by cheque as detailed below: Amount (Rs.) Date 20,000 27.1.2001 16,000 14.2.2001 9,000 20.2.2001

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by the appellant/contractor. It was averred that though he had advised that construction should be made on column basis but the complainant did not accede to his advice and directed that construction should be on boulder basis. It was also averred that the complainant told the appellant/contractor that since the dairy was likely to be shifted to a different location outside the city a strong construction was not necessary and that specification in the quotation submitted by the appellant/contractor need not be adhered to and that the said quotation was obtained only to secure loan from the bank. It was also averred that the complainant himself told appellant/contractor that he does not wish to get a well dug or get the flooring work executed. It was also averred that the complainant asked the appellant/contractor to execute certain other work which was executed by the appellant/contractor. Thereafter, the appellant submitted a bill dated 14.2.2001. In pursuance thereof and after feeling satisfied about the construction work the complaianant/respondent issued a cheque for Rs. 16,000 on 14.2.2001. It was also averred that since the complainant had got executed additional work from the appellant, the latter demanded the balance amount which was paid by the complainant by cheque. The said amount of Rs. 20,429.20 was paid by the complainant by cheque dated 30.4.2001, which however bounced due to shortage of funds, for which the appellant launched proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It was averred that in order to avoid the consequences of such proceeding, the complainant had filed the complaint against the appellant.