ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member) This consumer complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Shri Satnam Sardul Singh S/o Late Shri Sardul Singh, R/o Sunargaon, Athoorwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “Complainant”) against Shri Arbal Singh S/o Shri Bagad Singh R/o Gram Jhabrawala, Doiwala, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as “Opposite Party”), alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in constructing his house. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs in his consumer complaint: i. The opposite party be directed to indemnify to the complainant with theentire amount spent on construction of the house i.e., Rs. 15,36,209/-. ii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify with 40% increase as rise in cost of construction due to inflation and price rise i.e, say Rs. 6,14,483/-. iii. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for demolition and clearing the site of debris. iv. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant for an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- because the complainant will have to shift in rented premises for getting the house newly constructed. v. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental harassment caused to complainant and his family by callous attitude shown by the opposite party. vi. The opposite party be directed to indemnify the complainant with a sum of Rs. 10,500/- incurred for procuring engineers report. vii. The opposite party be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of complaint. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the complainant awarded a contract to the opposite party for the construction of his house @ Rs. 530/- per sq.ft. based on roof’s measurement. This rate included labour charges as well as cost of material, except tiles for flooring which were to be provided by the complainant. An agreement in this regard was signed by the parties on 11.05.2007. The construction was to be completed within six months from the date of the agreement. The payment schedule as per agreement was as under: (i) Rs. 2,00,000/- in advance before starting the work. (ii) Rs. 2,00,000/- on completion of construction upto plinth level. (iii) Rs. An agreement in this regard was signed by the parties on 11.05.2007. The construction was to be completed within six months from the date of the agreement. The payment schedule as per agreement was as under: (i) Rs. 2,00,000/- in advance before starting the work. (ii) Rs. 2,00,000/- on completion of construction upto plinth level. (iii) Rs. 3,00,000/- on completion of construction of work upto a height of seven feet. (iv) Rs. 1,50,000/- at the time of opening the linter for construction of roof. (v) Rs. 1,00,000/- for miscellaneous work such as plastering etc. (vi) Rest of the amount was to be paid on completion of the work i.e., when the house was finally finished which included plastering, wood work, steel fabrication, electric work, sanitary work and painting. As against this schedule, the complainant made the following payments to the opposite party: i. On 14.05.2007 Rs. 2,00,000/ ii. On 30.05.2007 Rs. 2,00,000/- iii. On 29.06.2007 Rs. 1,50,000/ iv. On 11.07.2007 Rs. 2,00,000/ v. On 31.07.2007 Rs. 2,00,000/ vi. On 21.08.2007 Rs. 1,50,000/ vii. On 06.09.2007 Rs. 1,00,000/ viii. On 01.10.2007 Rs. 1,00,000/ ix. On 14.12.2007 Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs. 13,50,000/ 3. Thus, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- as against Rs, 9,50,000/- payable as per the agreement. Explaining the reason for the excess payment made to the opposite party, the complainant has stated in his consumer complaint that he was living in a rented house and he had to vacate it. The opposite party taking benefit of this urgency, made the complainant to pay more on the ground of financial stringency. The opposite party hung out the roof unnecessary too much to increase the cost of construction. As per the map, the area of the roof should have been 2530 sq.ft., but he increased it to 2915 sq.ft. with an intention to make more money. 4. Besides increasing the area of the roof, the complainant has alleged that the opposite party left the work unfinished. As per the consumer complaint, the details of unfinished work are as follows: (i) The opposite party refused to make septic tank saying that it was not his work and left the entire work of sanitary, electricity, masonry, painting unfinished. (ii) All floors of the attics were left unfinished without any plaster. (iii) The opposite party did not construct the platform for washing clothes. (iv) No proper drainage has been provided. (ii) All floors of the attics were left unfinished without any plaster. (iii) The opposite party did not construct the platform for washing clothes. (iv) No proper drainage has been provided. (v) The house has not been properly painted. (vi) The opposite party did not provide any bulbs and tubes. (vii) The flooring of the entire house was left dirty with cement sticking to it. Besides the above unfinished work, the complainant found the following defects in the house: (i) The entire house does not have a single room where the four corners of the house are at right angles. (ii) The house does not have a solid foundation. (iii) The height of all the four corners in a room is not same. (iv) Majority of the walls are not vertical but are converging in or diverging out. (v) The brickwork done by opposite party is extremely loose. (vi) The plasterwork done is extremely shabby. (vii) All the tiles are laid uneven and laid down on soil without using any cement. (viii) The staircase leading to the roof is extremely uneven. (ix) The rolling shutter on the garage is extremely light weight. (x) The knobs of stopcocks for showers have not been deliberately fitted. 5. The complainant has also stated in his consumer complaint that the opposite party was required to complete the construction by 14th November, 2007, but he failed to do so. However, when some third person stepped in to mediate, the opposite party agreed to complete the work by 30th November, 2007. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party failed to complete the work by 30th November, 2007 and continued to work till 8th of January, 2008. Then, without informing the complainant, the opposite party left the site without completing the work and he appeared on 1 1th February, 2008. The complainant asked him to give the bill, written guarantee for durability of the house and the entire day-to-day account. But the opposite party entered into a fierce and verbal altercation with the complainant and his family members. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.03.2008 to the opposite party to indemnify the loss occurred to him. The opposite party, in reply to this legal notice, threw an entirely forged and fabricated counter offensive at the complainant through his counsel Shri Sanjay Rautela, Advocate. Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 04.03.2008 to the opposite party to indemnify the loss occurred to him. The opposite party, in reply to this legal notice, threw an entirely forged and fabricated counter offensive at the complainant through his counsel Shri Sanjay Rautela, Advocate. It was replied by the complainant vide registered letter dated 2nd April, 2008. But the opposite party, instead of accepting his misdeeds, again started threatening the complainant and his family members. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before this Commission, seeking the reliefs as stated above. 6. The opposite party filed the written statement dated 18.05.2009, which is at Paper Nos. 57 to 65. The opposite party has stated in his written statement that the matter needs vast evidence and, therefore, the dispute is out of the scope of consumer proceedings. It has also been stated that the complaint is valued on a very-very higher side. With regard to the allegations levelled by the complainant, the opposite party has stated that the construction was done under the strict supervision of the complainant. However, in respect of the payments made by the complainant to the opposite party, he has not denied that extra payment, than what was scheduled to be paid as per agreement, was made by the complainant, but the opposite party has stated that the extra payment was made for the extra work and not because he had cited reasons of financial stringency. He has also denied that he had increased the size of the rooms. It was done as per the directions given by the complainant. The opposite party has made a counter allegation against the complainant stating that he had completed the construction work, but the complainant did not pay the due amount to him. The opposite party has also stated that construction of the septic tank was not the part and parcel of the agreement and, therefore, the complainant had to pay extra amount for this work. Making a counter allegation against the complainant, the opposite party has stated that the complainant was not ready to pay the balance amount which was about Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant had taken the possession of the house in question in his absence including the building material, machinery etc. of the opposite party with ulterior motive and he is now not returning the same. 5,00,000/-. The complainant had taken the possession of the house in question in his absence including the building material, machinery etc. of the opposite party with ulterior motive and he is now not returning the same. According to the opposite party, the police is also on complainant’s side because the complainant is an advocate. 7. In respect of the allegation of deficiency in service, the opposite party has stated in his written statement that the list of unfinished work, as mentioned by the complainant in his consumer complaint, is nothing but the tissue of lies and has no legs to stand upon. There is no defect in the construction work. The rooms were not square and there is no shift of 3 inches to 6 inches in the rooms and there is neither any difference in the height of the roof. He has not defaulted in terms of good workmanship. The defects indicated by the complainant is nothing, but the jugglery of words. The opposite party has admitted that the construction was to be completed by 14th November, 2007 and he had completed the work by this date. It was because the complainant was not making the total payment due for him including the cost of extra work, he had not delivered the possession of the house. The opposite party has denied all the allegations that he had spoiled the house, continued the construction work upto 8th January, 2008 and left the site without informing the complainant and without completing the work. 8. In reply to the written statement filed by the opposite party, the complainant has filed his counter affidavit, which is at Paper Nos. 66 to 69. He has also submitted some photographs of the house alongwith his counter reply which are at Paper Nos. 72 to 76. In his counter affidavit, the complainant has stated that during the construction of his house, he was residing in Dehradun and, as such, the averment made by the opposite party that the construction was done under the strict supervision of the complainant, is false in itself. Regarding the defects in workmanship, the complainant has stated that these can be seen with naked eye. He has also submitted some photographs which depict the defects in the house. The complainant has also stated that the opposite party has evaded replying to all material allegations. Regarding the defects in workmanship, the complainant has stated that these can be seen with naked eye. He has also submitted some photographs which depict the defects in the house. The complainant has also stated that the opposite party has evaded replying to all material allegations. The case does not require any substantial or vast evidence except for evidence that may be produced on record. In evidence, the complainant has also filed an “Inspection report of residential building” prepared by M/s Vasundhara Architect & Engineers, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, who has concluded the inspection report in the following words: “The entire house has been constructed below the norms of IS Code of the building not only this they are followed below the normal working practice of the contractor. The present condition of entire house is in unfinished state. The building is not worth living from all over point of view including earthquake condition. On the whole no renovation is possible without demolishing the total building.” The Inspecting Engineer has also annexed some photographs of the building. 9. The aforesaid evidences were filed by the complainant on 14.07.2009 and the opposite party was granted time by this Commission to file evidences fixing the next date as 12.08.2009. On 12.08.2009, the counsel for the opposite party moved an adjournment application and the case was adjourned to 06.10.2009. Since then, the case was adjourned on several dates mostly on the applications moved by the opposite party. Ultimately, on 24.01.2011, when the counsel for the opposite party again moved an application and failed to adduce evidences, this Commission closed the evidence of the opposite party. However, on 22.03.2011, the opposite party moved an application for recalling the order dated 24.01.2011, whereby the evidence of the opposite party was closed. Considering the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this Commission recalled its order dated 24.01.2011 in the interest of justice and accepted the documents filed by the opposite party in evidence. The document filed on this date by the opposite party is an affidavit of the opposite party, which is placed at Paper Nos. 99 to 107. Some photographs of the building have also been annexed to it, which are at Paper Nos. 108 to 111. According to the opposite party, the complainant has not shown the actual condition of the site. 99 to 107. Some photographs of the building have also been annexed to it, which are at Paper Nos. 108 to 111. According to the opposite party, the complainant has not shown the actual condition of the site. As averred by the opposite party, the land on which house has been constructed is very soaky and thus the foundation and walls are soaking water from the land. He has stated that the consumer complaint is based on false and frivolous grounds. 10. The complainant has submitted his counter affidavit dated 14.04.2011 (Paper Nos. 113 to 114) in reply to the above contentions of the opposite party and has also annexed some photographs of the site which are at Paper Nos. 115 and 116. On 28.04.2011, when the complainant filed the rebuttal (Paper Nos. 113 to 116), the evidences of the parties was closed and the matter was fixed for 08.07.2011 for arguments. On 12.10.2011, the complainant filed his written arguments (Paper Nos. 117 to 127). The learned counsel for the opposite party sought time for filing the written arguments in reply. Since then, the case was adjourned several times, but the opposite party failed to submit the written arguments. Ultimately, on 11.09.2012, when the learned counsel for the opposite party moved an adjournment application, this Commission passed the following order: “Keeping in view the submissions raised by the complainant as well as after perusal of the order-sheet, we think that the matter be placed on 26.11.2012. It is made clear that no further adjournment in this case shall be granted.” On 26.11.2012, the learned counsel for the opposite party again moved an adjournment application inspite of the Commission’s order dated 11.09.2012. This Commission passed the following order on this application of the opposite party: “Put up this consumer complaint for judgment on 15.01.2013. However, in the meanwhile, if the learned counsel for the opposite party intends to file the written arguments in reply to the written arguments filed by the complainant, he may file the same after supplying the copy of the same to the learned counsel for the complainant.” On 15.01.2013, the learned counsel for the opposite party failed to submit the written (or verbal) arguments and, thus, there was no option left for this Commission but to proceed ex-parte against the opposite party. 11. 11. We carefully perused all the documents submitted by the parties including the written statement filed by the opposite party and all the affidavits filed by the parties in support of their contentions. One of the objections raised by the opposite party is that the matter requires vast evidences and, therefore, it cannot be adjudicated by a Consumer Forum. But the opposite party has failed to indicate those evidences which may be termed as “vast”. In our opinion, the evidences filed by the complainant are sufficient to decide the matter. The complainant has filed the copies of the payment receipts, inspection report of the engineer, photographs depicting the condition of the house etc. and the opposite party has failed to adduce any such documentary evidence which may falsify the complainant’s allegations against him. According to the opposite party, the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 5 lacs, but nowhere in his affidavits, he has given the details of the roof area of the house and the actual cost of construction calculated at the rate agreed upon by the complainant. The complainant has stated in his complaint that he has spent an amount of Rs. 15,36,209/- in the construction of his house and the opposite party has not controverted it in his written statement by giving the details of construction and actual cost of construction at the rate agreed upon by the parties. The opposite party’s reply that the land on which house was constructed is soaky, itself shows that he did not take care for proper water proofing treatment of the foundation. Such a reply, instead of defending him, helps the complainant in establishing the allegations made against the opposite party. Further, the complainant has filed certain photographs in rebuttal to the above. These photographs clearly depict the condition of the site which appears to us quite proper for construction of a house. Other photographs, which are at Paper Nos. 72 to 76, clearly depict the poor quality of construction. The Engineer’s inspection report also supports the complainant’s claim. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has successfully established the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and he deserves to be compensated by the opposite party for the loss. 72 to 76, clearly depict the poor quality of construction. The Engineer’s inspection report also supports the complainant’s claim. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has successfully established the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and he deserves to be compensated by the opposite party for the loss. With regard to the compensation to be awarded, we are of the view that it should be based on what the complainant has actually paid to the opposite party. As per the receipts submitted by the complainant, he had made a payment of Rs. 13,50,000/-. Therefore, it would be just and proper that the opposite party be directed to pay this amount to the complainant. For the other reliefs, as prayed by the complainant, the complainant may be awarded a higher rate of interest on the above amount than the rate which is generally awarded in such cases by the Consumer Forum. In our opinion, an interest rate of 10% per annum, payable from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till the date of actual payment, would be sufficient to cover other reliefs such as cost of demolition, price escalation, compensation for mental agony etc. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is also to be awarded towards litigation expenses. 12. Thus, the consumer complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 13,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing the consumer complaint till actual payment and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost within a month from the date of this order.