SUBRAMANYAN Vs. SIDDARAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 23.6.2006 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dismissing appeal against the order dated 10.2.2005 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed (sic.) doors, shutters and windows shutters in the schedule building, complete RCC of the second floor i.e. staircase, complete mosaic and railing works and pay compensation of Rs.5,000 towards mental agony to the respondent/complainant.

(2.) Respondent entered into an agreement dated 11.11.2002 with the petitioner for construction of house for a sum of Rs. 8,10,000 and construction was to be completed within 4 months. Upto 8.4.2003 the petitioner completed only 60% of the work for which respondent paid Rs. 6,75,000. On 8.4.2003 another agreement was executed between the parties under which a further sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid and petitioner agreed to complete the construction within a few days. On 16.6.2003, 30% of the balance work was found to have been done. On that date another agreement was entered into between the parties under which respondent paid another sum of Rs. 50,000 . Petitioner undertook to complete the remaining work within few days. After completion of 80% work the respondent was to pay balance amount of Rs. 35,000. Respondent alleged that on 26.7.2003 the petitioner left 20% work and started giving evasive answers. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service, respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner. In written version, petitioner alleged that though the sanctioned plan was for construction of 152.62 sq. mtrs. of building but the agreement was entered into for construction of 196.64 sq. mtrs. at the estimated cost of Rs. 14,40,000 out of which the respondent had paid Rs. 7,75,000 leaving a balance of Rs. 6,65,000. Complaint was filed to avoid the balance payment. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission.

(3.) Contention advanced by Mr. S. J. Amith for petitioner is that the construction done by the petitioner was 311.40 sq. mtrs. and cost thereof is Rs. 15,05,000 and Fora below had acted erroneously in passing the impugned orders. Order of District Forum notices that in the agreement dated 11.11.2002 the extent of total measurement of construction to be made on ground, first and second floors is mentioned as 196.64 sq. mtrs and two agreements executed subsequently also pertain to the execution of balance work of 196.64 sq. mtrs. Order further notices that it was in the affidavit of petitioner that he changed the stand that the extent of construction made was 311.46 sq. mtrs. and cost thereof was Rs. 15,05,000. Copy of the order passed in I.A. No. 1 dated 9.11.2004 by the District Forum is at pages 11-12A. This order was passed on the application filed by the petitioner for appointing a Civil Engineer as Local Commissioner to take measurement of construction etc. As may be seen from said order the stand taken in application was that the petitioner had constructed building measuring 196.64 sq. mtrs. Since this measurement was admitted by the respondent, the application was dismissed by the Forum. In view of aforesaid agreement dated 11.11.2002 and what is stated in I.A. No. 1 both the Fora below had rightly reached the conclusion that the plea taken by the petitioner in regard to his having constructed 311.64 sq. mtrs. of building was false. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.