Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 127 (UTT)

Parmanand Bhatt v. Ramayan Kushwaha

2016-03-17

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard learned counsels of either party, the Court feels that the whole controversy has been determined by the Court below while adjudicating the issue nos.1, 2 and 3 collectively. 2. Since those issues have covered the whole dispute between the parties and have altogether been adjudicated in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay Rupees Fifty Thousand along with 9.5 percent simple interest per annum from the date of judgment to that of actual payment. 3. Having perused the pleadings as well as the impugned judgment, it is evident that the defendant/appellant is the owner of the house, wherefor the contract for construction was granted to the plaintiff/respondent. The terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties were reduced into writing which advert that the appellant will pay the whole cost of construction in four installments whereas the rate of laying down the linter on the constructed area will be Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty per square feet. It was also indicated that the money spent by the contractor towards the electric fittings and installing the grills will be paid separately. The whole terms were reduced into seven points, even though the Court feels that the same was not unequivocal. 4. The contractor started to work and after doing the considerable construction at the site, the dispute erupted on sundry scores, as regards the quality of the construction material, besides measurement of the constructed area. So, the contractor stopped the work and thereafter, the house owner, after spending wherewithal at his own, got his construction completed in order to make the house meaningful. The contractor filed original suit in the capacity as In Forma Pauperis, which has been decreed for the amount of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the whole amount to the tune of Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand was paid to the contractor for the entire work and no further amount was required to be paid on his part. 6. This argument does not hold any water for the reason that it is against the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 01.07.1995, which has not been denied by the defendant/respondent. 6. This argument does not hold any water for the reason that it is against the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 01.07.1995, which has not been denied by the defendant/respondent. It is quite unacceptable and beyond the understanding of common prudence that the house owner would give entire amount in advance to the contractor against the terms and conditions of the agreement, reduced into writing between the two. 7. The original suit was filed claiming Rs.1.70 lakh from the defendant averring that the whole amount spent by the contractor in the construction, upto the level it was left, was Rs.3.50 lakh. The Court below, on the basis of evidence, has accepted that the whole constructed area was 1600 square feet and since, there were certain shortcomings left by the Contractor, hence, instead of awarding the construction rate to the tune of Rs.250/- per square feet, the Court considered it proper to award the same @Rs.200/- per square feet. 8. This way, the cost of construction comes to Rs.3.20 lakh, where-against Rs.1.80 lakh has already been paid by the house owner to the respondent. So, the contractor is entitled to get Rupees One Lakh Forty Thousand from Shri Parmanand Bhatt. 9. Having perused the impugned judgment, it is further evident that the Court below has reduced Rs.90,000/- on the score that house owner had to spend this amount of money for completing the whole project. This way, reducing Rs.90,000/- again, a sum of only Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the contractor against the house owner along with the interest, as aforementioned. 10. On the basis of evidence what has been averred before this Court too, I find that the issues decided by the Trial Court are not interferable and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. But at the same time, looking to the financial status of the party concerned, I reduce the rate of simple interest from 9.5% to 6.5% per annum, to be payable from the date of institution of this suit upto the date of actual payment. 11. Subject to the modification of the interest, as has been highlighted above, the appeal is dismissed.