IMPORTANT POINT
Agreement cannot be unilaterally terminated.

Dr. B. C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 04.07.2014, passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in two appeals, i. e., appeal No.69/2013, Damodar Thali and Anr. vs. Vijay Kapoor and appeal No.70/2013, Vijay Kapoor vs. Damodar Thali & Anr., as a consequence of which, the appeal filed by the present petitioner/complainant was ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum on 30.8.2013, partly allowing the said complaint, was set aside.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum saying that he employed the services of OPs/respondents for carrying out construction of a house on the plot owned by him. The OP-1 assured him that he was a qualified, experienced civil engineer, having his own proprietary firm. However, the petitioner/complainant put him in touch with his own architect and chartered engineer, asked him to exchange drawings and paid money to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs to him for carrying out the said construction. However, at a certain stage, differences arose between the parties as regards the quality of work, proper billing, delay and failure to meet time schedule etc. The complainant then terminated his agreement with the OPs and demanded return of Rs.77,588/- vide calculation sent as per e-mail dated 24.12.2010. Subsequently, the complainant found that the construction works undertaken by the OPs had started developing curvature and cracks. As per the opinion obtained from his architect and engineer, the complainant demolished the structure raised, and incurred a cost of Rs.33,000/-. The said amount should be paid to him by the OPs alongwith interest @18% p. a. He also demanded that a sum of Rs.3.27 lakh should be paid by the OPs for the estimated increased cost of the project, Rs.2 lakh should be paid for mental agony, Rs.2 lakh as punitive damages and Rs.30,000/- as cost.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OPs by filing their written statement before the District Forum in which they denied the allegations levelled by the complainant and stated that the work was undertaken as per the quotation dated 23.10.2010 accepted and acknowledged by the complainant. They further took the stand that they had already spent more than Rs.2 lakhs received from the complainant and hence, the complainant owed them certain more amount. The demolition was done by the complainant without taking them into confidence. The District Forum vide their order dated 30.08.2003, allowed the complaint partly and ordered the OPs to return a sum of Rs.1.5 lakh as 75% of the amount received by them from the complainant. Two appeals were filed against this order before the State Commission – one by the OPs requesting for dismissal of the complaint and other by the complainant / petitioner for enhancement of the awarded amount. The State Commission, vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/complainant, but allowed the appeal of the OPs and set aside the order of the District Forum and thus, dismissed the complaint in question.

4. During arguments, the petitioner who appeared in person, stated that as per the construction licence issued by the village panchayat, SE-OLD-GOA, the panchayat was to be informed after excavation and before laying the plinth foundation. The construction was to be carried out as per the alignment given and plinth level fixed by the panchayat. However, these conditions were not met by the OPs. Further, the OPs sent him the final bill statement, but there was no technical verification for the same. The written statement filed by the OPs had not been attested by any authority and it does not disclose the source of information for the facts stated. The complainant also argued that he did not sign the quotations dated 23.10.2010. His signatures placed on the said quotations were