DULAR SINHA Vs. NIRBHAY DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 30.3.2007 of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur dismissing appeal No. 384 of 2006 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.7.2006 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay amount of Rs. 1,47,750 to respondent No. 1.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1/complainant alleged that he awarded the contact for construction of house on his plot at Tinkarapara, Dangalgarh to the petitioner/O.P. No. 1. Cement manufactured by respondent No. 3/O.P. No. 3 was purchased through its dealer-respondent No. 2/O.P. No. 2 for the construction. It was further alleged that after a few months of the completion of house, its roof developed cracks at different places. On being informed of this fact, the petitioner got the cracked portions plastered still the leakage of water from the roof did not stop. Alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking award of Rs. 9,99,500 by respondent No. 1. Since the complaint has been dismissed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and award made only against the petitioner the defence taken in the written version by him alone need be referred to. It was denied that contact for construction of the house for respondent No. 1 was taken or the roof was cast by the petitioner as alleged. It was stated that the petitioner had arranged the masons and labourers and the construction of house was carried by respondent No. 1 under his supervision. It was denied that any plastering of the cracks of the roof was done by the petitioner as alleged. Whatever amount was received by him from respondent No. 1 was towards the labour charges. Considering the payment of amount of Rs. 55,500 against receipt(s) to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 and the report of Santosh Meshram as also his evidence, the Fora below disbelieved the defence to the said effect taken by the petitioner and believed the case of respondent No. 1 that contract for construction of house was awarded to the petitioner, roof was laid by the petitioner; roof developed cracks at different places and respondent No. 1 had, thus, suffered damage on account of carelessness on part of the petitioner in casting the roof, etc. Having heard Mr. R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the petitioner, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the finding returned by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. R.P. dismissed.