Complainant Iqbal Singh vide the present complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short The Act) for issuance of the necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.60,000/- i.e. the costs of the wooden material i.e. Rs.50,000/-, Rs.10,000/- paid by him on the repairs of the said material alongwith compensation and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the opposite parties are running Saw Mill at Udhipur Road Aara Awankha and they are preparing the wooden doors, windows, ventilators and other wooden building materials and they also fixing/fitting the doors, windows and ventilators etc. He has constructed his residential house and he contacted the opposite parties for purchasing doors, widows and ventilators etc and opposite parties assured him that they have good quality of Kail wood which will not be destroyed in long period and they also told him if he purchased the aboveaid materials from them then they would affix/fitted the same in his house on their own. He had purchased the wooden Kail materials from the opposite parties and opposite parties affixed/fitted the same in his house at point X, shown in the Site Plan for the last one year and they charged Rs.50,000/- from him. He has hired the service of the opposite parties as such he has become the consumer of the opposite parties. The doors and windows etc. affixed by the opposite parties have not been of the quality of Kail and the said material of low quality material which has been destroyed within a period of one year. He approached to the opposite parties to check the work done by them and also checked the material which has been used by them. They put off the matter with one pretext or the other which is deficiency in service on their part as well as unfair trade practice. He has spent Rs.10,000/-on the repairs of the said doors, windows etc. from the other carpenter. Due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties, he has suffered great loss and also suffered mental harassment, so there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite parties through their counsel and filed their written version taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the present complaint is barred by limitation; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the real facts before this Hon’ble Forum and the present complaint is without any merits and the same is likely to be dismissed with heavy costs. On merits, it was admitted that complainant had constructed his residential house and he contacted the opposite parties for purchasing doors, windows, and ventilators for his house. The opposite parties gave assurance for long life of wooden work subject to their care and maintenance, but the complainant did not even paint or polish the windows and doors in his house till today. If someone will not care the doors and windows then definitely will be destroyed by the rain and sun light. It was also admitted that the complainant purchases the wooden Kail materials from the opposite parties and they fitted the same in the house of the complainant. The opposite parties did work of fitting the wooden material for the last three years. Infact the complainant had not paid the amount of Rs.26,500/- which is due towards the complainant for work done in his house by the opposite parties. The opposite parties also gave an application to the Police of Police Station Dinanagar through Sarpanch of Village Awankha on 2.4.2016 regarding pending payment of Rs.26,500/- from the complainant but the Police Station Dinanagar did not consider the same by saying that the matter is pending before the Ld.Consumer Forum, Gurdaspur. The complainant intentionally filed this complaint only to avoid the payment of the opposite parties for the work done in his house. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainant Ex.C1, Sh.Sandeep Singh Ex.C2, Sh.Ashwani Tuli Ex.C3 and of Sh.Lakhwinder Singh Ex.C4 along with the other documents exhibited as Ex.C5 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

5.      Sh.Ajit Raj opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and of Sh.Bittu Ex.OP-2 alongwith the other documents Ex.OP-3  and Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

6.         We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back-drop of the statutory merit of the evidence/documents as duly produced by the contesting litigants in order to judiciously adjudicate the present complaint under the applicable C P Act’ 1986.

7.       We find that the complainant Iqbal Singh has failed to prove the alleged payment of Rs.50,000/- towards the purchase of Kail Wood doors/windows etc as fitted in his newly constructed House nor could successfully rebut the allegation of balance payment of Rs.26,500/- as duly proved by the Opposite Party Vendors vide their letter dated 02.04.2016 (Ex.OP3) and Invoice/Bill # 29 (Ex.OP4) dated 18.04.2013. There has been no mention of ‘Kail Wood’ supply in the above supply Bill and as such even the purchase of wood of ‘Kail’ quality stands ‘not-proved’ and in its absence the allegation of ‘deficiency in service’ becomes meaningless. Similarly, the alleged payment of Rs.10,000/- as repairs charges etc has not been even attempted to be proved through some cogent evidence. The ‘4’ nos of affidavits (Ex.C1 to Ex.C4) in the absence of supporting ‘cogent’ evidence amount to ‘bald’ statements only and thus fail to attract any favorable ‘statutory’ award. Further, the undated photographs (Ex.C5 to Ex.C7) indicate ‘poor’ maintenance more than the poor quality timber wood. At the face of failure of the complainant to prove the allegations as made out in his complaint, the titled opposite party service providers had little rather nothing much to rebut and thus the affidavits Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP2 assisted by the ‘2’ above documents serve the purpose well.

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and are of the considered opinion that the prime dispute pertains to and tilts more towards the settlement of accounts rather than to infringement of consumer rights and thus ORDER for its ‘dismissal’ with however, the litigants set at liberty to settle the inter-se dispute by way of other legal ‘remedy’ of own choice or advise as available in law and proceeded as prescribed in law.  The parties shall bear their own costs, here.   

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                             President   

Announced:                                                    (Jagdeep Kaur)

September 27, 2016                                                Member

*MK*