ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. CHANDRAHASA KOTIAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore dated 28.11.2005 passed in Appeal No. 1838/05 dismissing his appeal and confirming the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed this revision petition before us.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix of the case in brief are that the petitioner wanted to construct a house in Mangalore City. Respondent No. 1, Chandrahasa Kotian, a Contractor was introduced by the Respondent No. 2, Shri Udaya Kumar who is a Civil Engineer and an Architect and an agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the Contractor to construct a house at a cost of Rs. 14.50 lakh by 11.5.2002 in accordance with the specifications and drawings shown in the agreement. Respondent No. 2 was engaged to supervise the construction as a Consulting Engineer. It was alleged by the complainant that there were certain items of works which were left unfinished and there were certain defects in the construction of the house. Accordingly, he approached the District Forum to award a total sum of Rs. 1,72,001 to be paid jointly and severally by the respondent who were the opposite parties before the District Forum.

(3.) THE matter was contested by the contractors stating that the total cost of work came to Rs. 16,81,122.77 and the complainant has paid a part amount leaving balance of Rs. 1,46,122.77. The District Forum held that it is not in dispute that the possession of the house was delivered on 4.12.2002 and the complainant himself had paid a sum of Rs. 4,15,000 in between 3.9.2002 to 12.12.2002 and if the complainant had not acquiesced with the additions and alternations he would not have paid the additional cost to the contractors. Further, the complainant had also paid to the Respondent No. 2, Civil Engineer -cum -Architect, a consultation fee during March, 2003 which also indicates that the Complainant had acquiesced with the so -called delay and alterations. Accordingly, it was held that the case set up by the Complainant was not proved. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.