ORDER

1.      Heard Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocate, for the appellant. In spite of service of notice, no body appears for the respondent. 

2.      The complainant has filed above appeal from the order State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa at Panaji dated 18.10.2016 passed in CC/04/2016, partly allowing the complaint and directing the respondent to pay Rs.60000/- as compensation for breach of contract, Rs.32874/- as expenses incurred in renewal of construction licence and Rs.100000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, to the complainant.

3.      Francisco Xavier Paulino Dias Sousa (the appellant) filed CC/04/2016 for directing the respondent to (i) refund Rs.1280000/- with interest @15% per annum, from the date of last payment till the date of refund; (ii) pay Rs.80000/-, as the expenses incurred in removing the sub-standard beams constructed by the opposite party; (iii) pay Rs.1000000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iv) pay Rs.32874/-, as the expenses incurred in renewal of the construction licence; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.      The complainant stated that he was owner in possession of Chalta Nos.127, 128, 129 and 130 of P.T. Sheet No.44, situated at “Corte De Oiteiro”, within the limits of the city of Panaji Goa (for short the property). Cement and Metal Crafts (the OP) was a partnership firm and Mr. Vilas Bhonsle was its proprietor, who through various advertisements in media and Expos organized by OHeraldo, claimed to be a professional with vast experience in property development and construction activities in State of Goa. The complainant decided to construct a residential house on the property in the year 2012. The complainant obtained NOC from various departments for raising construction, approval of layout plan for the building on 04.01.2013 and construction licence on 05.09.2013 from Corporation of City of Panaji. Allured with the advertisement of the OP, the complainant visited the office of the OP in October, 2014. The OP again represented to be an expert in the field of construction of the building and assured that he would be complete the construction as per layout plan within 270 days. Believing upon the assurances of the OP, the complainant entered into an agreement dated 27.10.2014 for construction of the building as per sanctioned layout plan on his property. As per agreement, the construction has to be completed within 270 days, which can be extended for 3 months in force majeure circumstances. However, the OP is liable to pay compensation @Rs.15000/- per month in case of delay. Schedule-II of the agreement provides total cost of the construction as Rs.36/- lacs, which was payable in seven instalments. Schedule III provides details of the work and specifications of the raw materials to be used. The complainant had all approvals necessary for construction of the building on the date of agreement. The complainant paid Rs.300000/- on 27.10.2014, Rs.980000/- on 20.12.2014 (total Rs.1280000/-). The complainant visited the site on several occasion and found that the work was not being carried out on regular basis and most of the time the site was left abandoned. As and when the complainant inquired from the OP, he used to reply that the building would be completed within time as given in the agreement. The period of 270 days expired on 24.07.2015 but the construction was hardly even commenced and only beams were laid although the OP had been paid more than 1/3^rd of the total amount payable. The OP has pocketed the money of the complainant, as such, he was entitled for interest @15% per annum on it. The OP did not use standard building materials as per specification in the agreement and also did not carry curing of the beams as a result of which the beams developed cracks, which made it unstable. The complainant obtained a valuation report of the construction raised by the OP dated 30.10.2015 from Mr.