Haryana

Sonipat

CC/153/2015

BIJENDER S/O ROHTASH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK S/O TULSI RAM - Opp.Party(s)

BALBIR SINGH DAHIYA

14 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.153 of 2015

                                Instituted on:11.05.2015

                                Date of order:-14.09.2015

 

Bijender son of Rohtash r/o village Lehrara, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

Ashok son of Tulsi Ram, r/o village Lehrara,  tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

 

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. BS Dahiya, Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Jitender Kumar, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the

respondent alleging therein that the respondent is plumber by profession and he did the sanitary work of the house of the complainant on 18.10.2014.  But due to poor sanitary work, there was leakage in the kitchen.  Whole portion of the house damaged due to leakage. The complainant has suffered a huge loss of Rs.6 lacs. The complainant asked the respondent to compensate him, but of no use. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that the dispute arose between the respondent, when he went to demand the balance labour charges from the complainant.  The complainant has refused to pay the same to the complainant. The respondent has moved an application to the SP Sonepat on 30.1.2015, but no action has been taken by the police.  The complainant has not suffered any loss at the hands of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

4.        In the present case, allegations of the complainant is that due to poor sanitary work, there was leakage of water, due to which, the house of the complainant has been damaged and is in dilapidated condition and the complainant has suffered huge loss of Rs.6 lacs.

          On the other hand, the plea of the respondent is that the dispute arose between the respondent, when he went to demand the balance labour charges from the complainant.  The complainant has refused to pay the same to the complainant. The respondent has moved an application to the SP Sonepat on 30.1.2015, but no action has been taken by the police.  The complainant has not suffered any loss at the hands of the respondent.

          We have perused the document marked as JN. This document is the application which was allegedly moved by the respondent against the complainant before the SP Sonepat. In this application, the respondent has admitted himself the plumber by his profession. In this application, he has also admitted that he has done the sanitary work in the house of Bijender, the present complainant.  So, from the above contents of the application, it is clear that the respondent is a plumber by profession and he has done the sanitary work in the house of the complainant.

          The plea of the complainant is that due to poor sanitary work done by the respondent, the house is damaged and is in dilapidated condition and he has suffered a huge loss to the tune of Rs.6 lacs.   In support of his version, he has placed on records the photographs C5 to C16.

          We have also perused the report of SDE (SSA) Sonepat.  The said SDE in his report has mentioned that due to cracks, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3 lacs approximately.

          So, from this report also, it is established that due to poor sanitary work, the house of the complainant has damaged and he has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.3 lacs as per report of SDE.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed a sum of Rs.6 lacs, which in our view is on a very higher side.  However, in our view, Rs.3 lacs would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent keeping in view the report of SDE. Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.three lacs) to the complainant for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:14.09.2015