M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

CC No.88 / 2018.

FILED ON :12.12.2018. Veerendra Shrivastava, s/o Shri J. P. Shrivastava, Director, Asia Pacific International School, Kolar Road, Bhopal (M.P.). …. COMPLAINANT.

Versus Vipin Chouhan, s/o Shri Vivek Chouhan, Signature Builders & Developers, Address : Chuna Bhatti Chouraha, Near Kali Mandir, Kolar Road, Bhopal (M.P.). ….OPPOSITE PARTY.

BEFORE:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY, MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (SMT) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES :

Ms. Siddheshree Dale, learned counsel for the complainant.

Shri Praveen Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party.

O R D E R

(Passed on 01 /02 / 2023)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shantanu S.

Kemkar, J :

This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act of 1986’) has been filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in constructing the school building.

2. According to the complainant for construction of school namely “Asia Pacific International School” he had given a contract for Rs.3,00,00,000/- to the opposite party. The building was constructed by the opposite party of which entire payment was made by the complainant by way of cash and the cheques. The possession of the school building was handed over to him by the opposite party in the year 2008. After getting the possession the complainant started running the school in the said building. Within two – three years he found cracks in the building and on 21.8.2018 the front portion of the school building was collapsed of which a police complaint was made on 24.8.2018 to the Superintendent of Policy, Bhopal and at Kolar Police Station.

3. Alleging deficiency in service in constructing the building by using sub- standard material the complainant sent a legal notice on 11.10.2018 to the opposite party seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- or to get the building repaired, but the opposite party paid no heed to it. In the circumstances, the complainant had to file this complaint seeking relief to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- or to direct him to make the appropriate repair / construction in the said building. In addition, Rs.3,00,000/- has been sought for mental, physical and economical loss, Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages for the time consumed due to the aforesaid deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost.

4. On being noticed, the opposite party filed reply to the complaint and denied the claim. He has also raised preliminary objection about maintainability of the complaint by stating that the construction is for commercial purpose and there is no requisite averment in the complaint and no evidence is led by the complainant so as to make it entertainable under the Act of 1986.

5. We have considered the pleadings and the rival contentions.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant during the course of hearing has not disputed that the contract of construction of the school building was given to the opposite party and the school is being constructed for commercial purpose so as to generate profit. She however, maintained that the opposite party has constructed the school by using sub-standard material resulting into the cracks in the building and as a result the front portion of the building was collapsed. She also argued that the damage has also been caused to the boundary wall of the school building and, therefore, the security of the building is at stake.

7. In order to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the opposite party it would be appropriate to refer Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act of 1986. For ready reference the said Section is quoted below :-

“(d) “consumer” means any person who,—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and incl