BUILDING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT QUALITY=the photographs produced by the complainant are sufficient to establish that the quality of the construction work is very poor. The technical report of the architect cannot be ignored on the ground that these are the words of the complainant. The report along with the photographs is sufficient to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, causing loss to the complainant. The plea that the opposite party had done the work as per the directions of Shri P. S. Raizada and Shri Pandey, the representatives of the complainant, is also not acceptable because these persons were authorised by the complainant for making timely payment to the opposite party, so that the work may not be stopped for want of funds. Nowhere in the agreement is it stated that these persons would also verify the quality of work. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITIONS NO. 3643-3644 OF 2011 (From the order dated 22.03.2011 of Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009) Shambhu Paswan 215, Chandreshwar Nagar Hrishikesh Petitioner District Dehradun Uttarakhand versus Shri Kuldeep Chandra Bhasin MIG - 61, Hrishikesh Colony Hrishikesh, District Dehradun Respondent Uttarakhand BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Advocate Pronounced on 14th February 2012 ORDER ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeals no. 78 and 83 of 2009. By this order, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent against the order dated 23.04.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (in short, ‘the District Forum’) in consumer complaint no. 56 of 2007. This order of the District Forum entailed directions to the opposite party (OP – Petitioner herein) to pay to the complainant (respondent herein) a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- within 30 days from the date of the order, failing which the OP was required to also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The District Forum also permitted the OP/Petitioner to take away the unused building material lying in the complainant’s premises. Against this order, the complainant filed appeal no. 78 of 2009 before the State Commission seeking enhancement of the relief granted by the District Forum while the OP filed appeal no. 83 of 2009 challenging the validity of the District Forum’s order. 2. After considering the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record and hearing the parties, the State Commission dismissed both the appeals by its impugned order, with the following observations/findings: “7. We considered the respective submissions. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party are not tenable because the photographs produced by the complainant are sufficient to establish that the quality of the construction work is very poor. The technical report of the architect cannot be ignored on the ground that these are the words of the complainant. The report along with the photographs is sufficient to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, causing loss to the complainant. The plea that the opposite party had done the work as per the directions of Shri P. S. Raizada and Shri Pandey, the representatives of the complainant, is also not acceptable because these persons were authorised by the complainant for making timely payment to the opposite party, so that the work may not be stopped for want of funds. Nowhere in the agreement is it stated that these persons would also verify the quality of work. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the opposite party is devoid of merit and hence it is liable to be dismissed. 8. We are also of the view the District Forum has adequately compensated the complainant for the loss suffered by him, by directing the opposite party to refund all the money received from the complainant. Regarding compensation for mental agony and escalation in construction cost, the District Forum has awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the amount. This interest rate is higher than the rate which is generally awarded by the Consumer Fora. The award of interest is always in lieu of compensation for mental and physical agony and, therefore, the complainant cannot be granted an additional compensation for the mental agony. The higher rate of interest also covers the inflationary effect on construction cost, if any, Further, the District Forum has not directed the opposite party to collect all that material which has been used in the construction work by scratching out or dismantling if and thus, the complainant is not in loss because he owns these goods along with the amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. This way, the opposite party has been penalised sufficiently for the deficiency made by him. What the District Forum has permitted the opposite party is to lift the unutilised material lying in complainant’s premises, if any. Therefore, the complainant should not have any apprehension in this regard. Thus, the appeal filed by the complainant is also liable to be dismissed”. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/OP at the stage of admission and considered the documents. As a reading of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned order would clearly show, the State Commission has properly analysed the pleadings and evidence on record and arrived at cogent findings giving reasons therefor. There is, therefore, no ground whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because the order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, legal infirmity or material irregularity. 4. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine, leaving the petitioner to bear his own costs. Sd/- …………………………………. [Anupam Dasgupta] Presiding Member Sd/- …………………………………. [Suresh Chandra] Member satish