IMPORTANT POINT
Absence of Evidence – In the absence of evidence produced by the complainant in the form of terms of contract entered into between the parties, bills for such alleged items procured in excess, and evidence with respect to the level differences allegations, the State Commission disapproved the District Forum order and dismissed the complaint.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (‘State Commission’) order dated 28.06.2017 in Appeal No.219 of 2017, wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the OP and reversed the Order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Durg (“District Forum”) dated 10.02.2017 in CC No.364 of 2016.

2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are referred as per the Complaint before District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that in January 2015, the complainant contracted with Opposite Party (OP) to demolish her house and construct a new one. They agreed @ Rs.125 per square foot for the ground floor and @ Rs.120 per square foot for the first floor. Construction began on 25.01.2015. Due to lethargic and suspicious behaviour of OP, she executed a formal agreement on 26.03.2015, through her brother, Sanjay Sav specifying the terms of construction. The OP prepared excessive concrete materials, leading to wastage of approximately 70 bags of cement and other material. The gallery on the first floor was constructed with a height exceeding that of the rooms, causing water to seep into the rooms. The flooring of ground floor began sinking due to poor-quality work. She claimed that the house was unusable due to these defects, estimating Rs.1,00,000 would be needed to rectify the issues. The complainant had forwarded a legal notice to the OP on 03.03.2016, but the OP failed to respond. She alleged the said actions of the OP’s constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and she filed a case before the District Forum, seeking Rs.50,000/- as compensation for wastage of 70 sacks of cement, sand and loose rock material, Rs.1 Lakh for reforming the unused house, Rs.1 Lakh due to commercial misconduct and litigation cost etc.

4. In reply before the District Forum, OP claimed absence of any agreement and only a verbal understanding regarding labour rates. The complainant provided fixed amounts of construction material and personally supervised the labour. The construction was carried out per her instructions and they denied any deficiency in service. The OP requested the dismissal of the complaint, asserting that no unfair trade practices or service deficiencies occurred.

5. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 10.02.2017, allowed the complaint with the observations and directed the OP as under:

“(13) Therefore, on the basis of the above consideration, we accept the complaint submitted by the complainant and give the order that the respondent should pay the complainant within the period of one month from the order date as follows:

(1) Respondent has to pay Rs.50,000 to complainant for damage of construction materials during construction of building.

(2) In case of non-payment by respondent of the above amount within the stipulated time to complainant, the respondent will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% annum from the order date to the payment date complainant.

(3) Respondent to pay the amount of Rs.1, 00,000 to the complainant to rebuild the house.

(4) Respondent to pay, as a mental indemnity Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant.

(5) Respondent to pay Rs.5,000 as the expenditure of the dispute.” (Extracted from translated copy)

6. Being aggrieved, the OP filed Appeal No.219/2017 and the State Commission vide order dated 28.06.2017 allowed the appeal with following observations: -

“9. We have heard the matter of advocate for appellant/ complainant and also conveyed the District Forum’s record and dissenting order.

10. After the overall paragraph of the present case, this question arises whether the appellant/respondent has done the degradation of service of the post of respondent/ complainant making the house careless? Is the respondent/complainant entitled to rec