MEGHALAYA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SHILLONG

F.A. No. 7 of 2014

BEFORE

Hon’ble President: Mr. Justice P.K. Musahary (Retd.)

Hon’ble Senior Member: Mr. Ramesh Bawri

Shri Jonathan Iangri

Shillong                                                                                .......... Appellant

Versus

Lyndem Designs & Others

Shillong                                                                                ........... Respondents

For the Appellant                :           Shri S. Jindal, Advocate

For the Respondents        :           Shri D.K. Warjri, Advocate

Date of Judgment              :           29^th April 2015

Whether to be reported    :           Yes

JUDGMENT & ORDER

Per:  Mr. Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the Order dated 12.08.2014, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Khasi Hills, Shillong, in Consumer Case No. 9 of 2014 (hereinafter called the Impugned Judgment). The Appellant was the Complainant before the said Forum and it is the contention of the Appellant before us that the Impugned Judgment is bad in law and facts.

2.         The brief facts leading to the filing of the present Appeal, as reflected in the impugned order, are that the Complainant / Appellant had placed a work order with OP No. 1 i.e. Lyndem Designs for construction of his residential house at Lum Wahat Mawpat, Shillong. OP 1 had summarized the cost of construction of the house and as per the Summary of the Costs dated 10.03.2011 provided by the OP 1 the total estimated cost for services to be provided by OP No. 1 towards construction of the residential house amounted to Rs. 39,49,098.69 p.

The Appellant paid an advance sum of Rs. 1,20,000 on 21.02.2011, Rs. 50,000 on 3.3.2011 and Rs. 7,80,000 on 11.3.2011 against the work and the same were duly accepted and acknowledged by the Proprietor (L) Aiban Lyndem on behalf of OP 1. It is the contention of the Appellant that inspite of receiving such a substantial amount of money, the Respondent No. 1 did not even commence, let alone complete, the work. Subsequently, on 25.05.2011, the Proprietor of Respondent No. 1, Late Aiban Lyndem, expired. Consequently, the work has remained unexecuted till date.

3.         After the death of the Proprietor of Respondent No. 1, the Appellant contacted the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the work which was still incomplete. The Respondent No. 2 was a business associate of the Proprietor of Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 then assured the Appellant that the work would be started and completed soon. However, it appears that the Respondent No. 2 expressed an inability to do so on account of lack of funds and requested the Appellant for further payment. Therefore, the Appellant paid the Respondent No. 2 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000  in order to get the work completed. Annexure 6 of the Memo of Appeal clearly reflects the payment of Rs. 2,00,000. However, even after such assurance from Respondent No. 2 and even after the additional payment, the work was not started and / or completed.

4.         The Appellant caused the issuance of a legal notice dated 03.01.2014 on Respondents 1, 2 and 3. The said legal notice is at Annexure 7 of the Memo of Appeal. It was the contention of the Appellant in the said legal notice that Respondent No. 3, being the parent of the late Proprietor of Respondent No. 1, was now the legal heir of the late Proprietor and therefore also liable for the debts and liabilities standing against the deceased son. The Appellant therefore requested respondent No. 3 to return the money which the Appellant had paid to his son during his lifetime. Respondents 3, through his Counsel, replied to the said legal notice on 13.01.2014. It was the contention of Respondent 3 that he was not responsible for any liabilities in respect of Respondent No. 1 and, if at all, it was the Respondent No. 2 who was solely liable. The reply dated 13.01.201