AMRUTA BUILDERS Vs. MULEHAND B JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 28.1.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra State partly allowing appeal against the order dated 23.9.2002 of a District Forum and reducing the rate of interest from 18% to 9% p.a. District Forum had directed the petitioner /opposite party to pay amount of Rs. 1,80,000 along with interest @ 18% from 22.2.1995, Rs. 73,366 towards amount of interest paid to the bank and Rs. 25,000 towards the mental agony etc. to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) UNDER an agreement dated 10.8.1993, respondent awarded the work of construction of building on S.No. 42A, 1A and 1C in village Utekhol to the petitioner. The rate of construction was agreed at Rs. 250 per sq. ft. and total area of construction was estimated to be 1295 sq. ft. Amount of Rs. 90,000 was paid towards the existing construction at the site by the respondent to the petitioner. After execution of agreement, amounts of Rs. 50,000 on 9.10.1993, Rs. 35,000 on 17.1.1994, Rs. 15,000 on 17.1.1994, Rs. 40,000 on 30.1.1994, Rs. 5,000 on 19.2.1994, Rs. 20,000 on 26.3.1994, Rs. 5,000 on 10.5.1994, Rs. 40,000 on 10.5.1994, Rs. 30,000 on 16.5.1994, Rs. 3,000 on 10.12.1994, Rs. 2,000 on 15.12.1994, Rs. 5,000 on 3.2.1995, Rs. 5,000 on 5.2.1994 and Rs. 15,000 on 22.2.1995 were further paid by the respondent to the petitioner. Respondent alleged that despite payment of total amount of Rs. 2,70,000 including Rs. 90,000 the petitioner did not proceed with the construction work and for payment of aforesaid amounts, he had to take loan of Rs. 1,95,000 @ 18% from Goregaon Co-operative Bank. Respondent further alleged that he had to take on lease alternate shop to start cloth business on monthly rent of Rs. 10,000. Alleging deficiency in service, respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. The main defence taken in written version was that the respondent did not make payment as per the terms of agreement and petitioner was, therefore, not responsible for delay in construction. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum and appeal by the petitioner was disposed of in the manner noticed above.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that petitioner did file written version to the complaint filed by the respondent. Order of District Forum notices that after filing of written version the petitioner remained absent on 17.6.2002 and 22.7.2002 and also at the time of final hearing. It is, thus, not a case of non-service of notice as contended.