The burden of proof lies on the complainant, and parties coming to court should have clean hands and a clean heart.

ORDER :

Veena Sharma, Member

This appeal has been filed by the appellant, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 147 of 2010, Sudhir Kumar Tyagi v. Ravindra Chauhan.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the appeal, are that the complainant-Sh. Sudhir Kumar Tyagi entered into a contract with the opposite party-the contractor, to construct his residential house on his plot, measuring 2,220 sq.ft. as per agreement @ Rs. 500 per sq. ft. At regular intervals, he paid total amount Rs. 8,81,000 by cash or cheque to the opposite party. Without any notice, the contractor left the construction, for which notice was issued, but contractor did not pay any attention to the said notice, so the complainant hired services of an Architect to evaluate the work done by the contractor and to estimate the remaining work. After evaluation, Architect informed the complainant that contractor has charged more money, as compared to the work done. Due to which the complainant has faced mental agony and financial loss, so he filed a consumer complaint.

3. Per contra, the written statement was filed on behalf of the opposite party. The contractor-Sh. Ravindra Chauhan pleaded therein that neither he received Rs. 8,81,000 from the complainant, nor Architect analysed the matter properly, nor he left the work incomplete. After satisfaction of the complainant, he handed over the key to the complainant, but the complainant is not willing to pay the amount for extra work done against the contract (agreement). The complainant has violated the agreement’s conditions and opposite party is liable to get Rupees four lacs from the complainant for extra work done. The complainant has paid only Rs. 7,40,000 against the work costed Rs. 11,40,000. The complainant has not got attested the agreement by the Notary, as per the Notary Act.

4. The District Forum, after perusal of the evidence on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 25.7.2013 and directed the appellant-opposite party to pay Rs. 2,80,000 to the respondent – complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-opposite party has filed the present appeal.

5. In the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the agreement dated 27.6.2007 was prepared and attested by the complainant himself, there is no signature of any witness on it. The opposite party has received photocopy of the agreement, wherein many corrections were done. According to the agreement, Rs. 500 per sq. ft. was mentioned for 2 ,220 sq. ft. area and after completing floor level work, 90% payment was to be done, but the complainant failed to make payment. The appellant has completed the construction work and handed over the house in the month of June, 2008. According to the agreement, the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 11,40,000, but the complainant has paid only Rs. 7,40,000, so Rupees four lacs is still pending towards the complainant. To avoid this payment, complainant has filed the consumer complaint. He further stated that the District Forum has made an error in finding that according to the Architect report the opposite party is not entitled to receive any amount from the complainant, as the opposite party has already received more amount, as Architect evaluated. In the Judgment, the District Forum has considered that the complainant has failed to prove the source from where and how much the remaining work was completed. Even the District Forum has passed an order to pay Rs. 2,50,000 for the alleged incomplete work, to the complainant.

Mr. Sudhanshu Dwivedi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the District Forum. He submits that due to legal notice on 6.11.2008 by the respondent to th