RAMINDER KAUR Vs. SANDEEP KHULLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal no. 1164 of 2016 has been filed against the order dated 11.05.2016 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('the State Commission') in Complaint Case no. 42 of 2008.

(2.) Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant/ complainant on 12.01.2004 entered into an agreement for construction of a residential house of 1000 square yards in Urban Estate of SAS Nagar, Mohali. The work was to be carried out on a turn-key basis and the project was to be completed within fifteen months. It was provided that in the event of default by the opposite party, the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- per day. Complainant paid a sum of Rs.1.15 crore. The complainant deputed M/s Verma and Associates to assess the quality of work done by the opposite party. It was alleged that the investigation revealed that the OP had over-charged a sum of Rs.6.45,962/- and there was a delay of 116 weeks in completion of the work. Further, there were many deficiencies and short comings in the work carried out. Hence, the appellant has filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission claiming compensation of Rs.69,24,929/- for the deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite party denied the allegations in the complaint and stated that the complaint was not maintainable. He allege that the complainant had manipulated the drawings of the structure and plans by increasing and decreasing the construction site and he was compelled to stop the work for 33 months as the complainant could not make the payments in terms of the agreement. Further, complainant had supplied the marble after nine months in January 2005, which contributed to the delay in construction of the residential house. Water and Electricity bills were paid except for the period of 33 months. The opposite party deputed Architect Mr R D Sharma and approved Chartered Engineer to make an assessment of the work done.