Punjab

Mansa

CC/21/80

Gurtej Singh Uraf Teji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Alishan Glass House - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. KS Matharu

19 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MANSA
PUNJAB
 
Complaint Case No. CC/21/80
( Date of Filing : 27 May 2021 )
 
1. Gurtej Singh Uraf Teji
S/o Karam Singh R/o Dhir Wali Gali Ward No. 8 Mansa
Mansa
Punjab
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Alishan Glass House
through its proprietor Bablu / Partner Back Side Gaushalla Road Near Nice Hotal Mansa
Mansa
Punjab
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  R.L.MITTAL PRESIDENT
  Suraj Goyal MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
Sh. Gurtej Singh, complainant in person.
......for the Complainant
 
OP exparte.
......for the Opp. Party
Dated : 19 Jul 2022
Final Order / Judgement
The case of the complainant is that he got contracted with the OP for doing the work of fitting of Touching Glass, Tuffen Glass and railing of the stairs at his house. After the start of work the OP received an amount of Rs. 30,000/- Rs. 50000/- from the complainant respectively. But with the malafide intention the OP started the work with the Plain Glass (simple) and with the simple glass instead of Tuffen Glass. The complainant objected on the work of OP then OP started harassed the complainant and he stopped the work. The complainant prayed for issuance of a direction to the OP to start the incomplete work of the house of complainant and to pay Rs. 20000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.
Despite service OP did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.
We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the file very carefully. The complainant alleged that he got contracted with the OP but there is no document on the file to prove this fact. The complainant has not placed on file any bill regarding the purchase of glass as alleged nor any receipt for making payment to the shopkeeper for purchasing the glass etc. It is not proved on record that the complainant himself purchased any material for doing the work in his house. The complainant also not placed on file any document regarding payment paid in advance to the OP as alleged. Further there is no proof on the file that the OP started the work at the house of the complainant. The complainant has placed on file only a copy of legal notice. It is not sufficient to prove the case of the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed with  no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules and file be indexed and consigned to record.
 
 
[ R.L.MITTAL]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Suraj Goyal]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.