Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (DIVISION BENCH)
Anup K. Thakur, C. Viswanath, Members
ISHOK SHAR MANN CONSULTANT BURO AND ANOTHER - Appellant
Vs.
RAMANA KUMARI AND OTHERS - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 949 of 2013
Decided On : 16-01-2019
A.K. Thakur, Advocate, Kavita Singh, Advocate, B.S. Sharma, Advocate
The absence of a written agreement and the demand for additional payments without a written agreement constituted a deficiency in service, leading to joint liability of the parties involved.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Construction Contract - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 12, Section 14, Section 21, Section 27 - The court discussed the valuation of work done, the absence of a written agreement, joint and several liability, and the obligation of the architect in the construction contract. The court found that the failure to sign a written agreement was a deficiency in service and that the demand for additional payments without a written agreement amounted to taking unfair advantage of the complainants' situation. The court upheld the orders of the lower fora, emphasizing the joint liability of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants engaged the respondents for construction on their plot. Disputes arose regarding the value of work done, payments, and the absence of a written agreement. The complainants sought a refund of excess charges and compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the failure to sign a written agreement was a deficiency in service and that the demand for additional payments without a written agreement amounted to taking unfair advantage of the complainants' situation. The court upheld the orders of the lower fora, emphasizing the joint liability of the parties involved.
Issues: Dispute over the value of work done, absence of a written agreement, demand for additional payments, and joint liability of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a written agreement and the demand for additional payments without a written agreement constituted a deficiency in service. The joint liability of the parties involved was upheld.
Final Decision: The court upheld the orders of the lower fora, dismissing the revision petition.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Anup K. Thakur, Presiding Member - This Revision Petition No. 949 of 2013, filed by the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/ Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2-(herein after OPs) challenges the order dated 9.11.2012 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission) in FA No. 2307 of 2005 which had upheld the order dated 15.9.2005 of the District Forum, Gurgaon. The District Forum had found that there was merit in the case of the respondents/complainants-Ramana Kumari and Shri B. Srinivasan (hereinafter complainants) and had directed that the OPs refund Rs. 6, 52, 514 individually and jointly with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment of the last bill till refund. In addition payment of Rs. 17, 325 paid to HUDA towards extension fee has also been directed to be paid to the complainants.
2. Very briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainants had a plot and wanted construction on the same. They engaged the OPs for the purpose. After due consultation, two quotations were furnished by the OPs, one for Rs. 12 lakh and the other for Rs. 14 lakh. The complainants say they approved the quotation of Rs. 12 lakh which included construction of ground floor, first floor and mumty. As per the complainants, their efforts to get drawings and design prior to construction were unsuccessful. Bhumi Pujan was nevertheless performed on 17.2.2002 and work started one week after that. First bill of Rs. 3.75 lakh dated 13.3.2002 was paid to OP-3-T.K. Singh, Civil Contractors and Engineers, on the understanding that OPs 1 to 3 were working together. Second bill was raised by OP-1 of Rs. 7.68 lakh dated 3.5.2002 which too was paid vide cheques. Another surrt of Rs. 1, 51, 700 was also paid to OPs 1 to 3 individually and jointly. All payments were made vide cheque except two of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 45, 000 respectively against which receipts were executed. In this way, a total sum of Rs 12, 94, 700 was paid.
3. In June, 2002, OPs demanded Rs. 2 lakh to continue construction. As the complainant had already paid the agreed amount, they resisted. This tussle led the complainants to have the construction carried out till then evaluated by an Architect, who found that work done was only to the tune of Rs. 6.25 lakh approximately. So, upon the complainants conveying that they would not be paying any more, the OPs stopped construction w.e.f. 15.7.2002. The complainants again got the construction evaluated by Mr. N.K. Nagpal, Government Registered Architect and Building Expert who found the value of construction at Rs. 6, 41, 500; this meant that the OPs had charged an excess of Rs. 6, 52, 514. All this clearly amounted to deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainants approached the District Forum vide complaint dated 6.1.2003 seeking direction to OPs (i) to refund Rs. 6, 52, 514 with 18% interest, (ii) to pay Rs 17, 325 towards penalty for non-completion of construction/building within the year 2002 to HUDA; (iii) to pay Rs. 15, 000 @ Rs, 5, 000 p.m. on account of rent due to the complainants not occupying their house in time i.e. 15.10.2002 and to further pay monthly rent to the complainant till their incomplete construction was completed by some other contractor; (iv) to pay Rs. 5, 000 for obtaining 9 report of Mr. N.K. Nagpal; (v) to pay Rs. 3, 500 for obtaining coloured photographs and video cassette made showing incomplete; and (vi) Rs. 11, 000 for legal cost as well as to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation to the complainants.
4. This complaint was contested through a written reply filed by the OPs. OPs-1 and 2 submitted that abare perusal of the documents submitted by the complainants would make it clear that the complainant was completely false insofar as OPs-1 and 2 were concerned. They were only the architect and their Services were confined to submitting drawing, etc. against fees, and their service stopped as soon as they had received. their fees. They cite in support the fact that the complainants had st
