Punjab

Faridkot

CC/15/166

Surinder Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baldev Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Balour Singh Sran

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       166

Date of Institution:   24.11.2015

Date of Decision :    11.04.2016

 

Surinder Pal Sharma s/o Harnam Singh  r/o  new Harindra Nagar, #B-XII-250, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Baldev Singh (Masson) s/o Pritam Singh r/o village Tehna Tehsil and District Faridkot.

.......OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Baljit Singh Sandhu, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                 OP-Exparte.

 

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                              Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Op seeking directions to OP to pay Rs.70,000/-for harassment, mental tension and deficiency in service, Rs.10,090/-as cost for reconstruction and re-affixation of marble and Rs 19,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that after constructing ground floor building of his house, he started living in his house alongwith his family and he was in need of construction of first floor of his house. His neighbour introduced him with OP and complainant got constructed the first floor building of his house from him in 2014 and after construction of first floor of his house, complainant needed an expert mason for affixation of marble in his said house. OP assured complainant that he is also an expert mason of affixation of marble work and on his assurance, complainant having good faith in him, hired the services of OP by making an agreement with him for marble affixation work as per rate affixed and agreed by the parties as follows:

1. Rs11/-per sq feet was fixed for affixation of normal marble work.

2. Rs30/-per sq feet for affixation of marble on front side of said first floor building and over upper side portion of the water tank built on first floor.

3. Kitchen works marble affixation charges were settled in lumpsum i.e Rs2800/-.

4. Affixation of marble work in bathroom was also settled in lumpsum of Rs4,650/-.

   And as per above agreement, complainant purchased marble from Punjab Marble House, vide bill dt 2.02.2015 for Rs24,491/-. It is contended that OP affixed the marble on the first floor of building i.e in lobby, two rooms, one kitchen, varandha, bathroom, projection, front side and upper portion of water tank since 1.02.2015 to 14.03.2015. OP used to get the advance money for his work done from time to time and after completing the said marble work, OP prepared the detailed bill for his work in his own writing for Rs25,520/- and gave it to complainant for remaining due amount and complainant accordingly paid the remaining amount to OP. It is further contended that after some time of completion of marble work, there was rain and due to unequal level of affixation of marble work on the roof of his house, there was no proper drainage of rainy water on some portion of roof. Deficiency of OP came to the notice of complainant after rains and due to blockage of rain water on some portion of roof, marble was damaged and some walls also gained moisture. Complainant informed about this fact to OP and requested him to remove the defect, but OP even avoided to come to see the spot or to remove the defect by making one excuse or the other. It is further contended that after waiting the Op for about six months, complainant re-hired the services of another expert mason and affixed the said damaged portion of roof by purchasing new marble of Rs4,090/-vide bill dt 26.09.2015 and also paid Rs6000/-to the new mason for work done. In getting the marble work done reaffixed over damaged portion of roof, complainant suffered heavy loss of Rs70,000/-which occurred due to stoppage of rainy water on the roof and also due to negligence, inexpertness and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant asked OP to compensate the loss caused to him due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice dt 9.11.2015 to OP, which he refused to receive. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                                                   The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30.11.2015, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to OP.

4                                              Registered cover, containing notice and copy of complaint sent to OP received back with report ‘refused’. It is presumed that OP is not interested in defending his case, therefore, after expiry of statutory period, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dt 24.02.2016.

5.                                             The complainant tendered in his exparte evidence his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 8 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                              As there is no rebuttal from OP side, therefore, in Exparte arguments, ld counsel for complainant contended that complainant got constructed the first floor of his house from OP and on assurance of OP that he is an expert mason and in good faith, complainant hired the services of OP for affixation of marble as per rate given below:

1. Rs11/-per sq feet was fixed for affixation of normal marble work.

2. Rs30/-per sq feet for affixation of marble on front side of said first floor building and over upper side portion of the water tank built on first floor.

3. Kitchen works marble affixation charges were settled in lumpsum i.e Rs2800/-.

4. Affixation of marble work in bathroom was also settled in lumpsum of Rs4,650/-.

And then, complainant purchased marble from Punjab Marble House, vide bill dt 2.02.2015 for Rs24,491/-. OP fixed the marble on the first floor of building i.e in lobby, two rooms, one kitchen, varandha, bathroom, projection, front side and upper portion of water tank from 1.02.2015 to 14.03.2015. Ld Counsel for complainant disclosed that OP used to get the advance money for his work done from time to time and after completing the said marble work, OP prepared the detailed bill for his work in his own writing for Rs25,520/- and gave it to complainant for remaining due amount and complainant accordingly paid the remaining amount to OP. It is further contended that after some time of completion of marble work, there was rain and due to unequal level of affixation of marble work on the roof of his house, there was no proper drainage of rainy water on some portion of roof. Deficiency of OP came to the notice of complainant after rains and due to blockage of rain water on some portion of roof, marble was damaged and some walls also gained moisture. Complainant informed about this fact to OP with request to remove the defect, but OP even avoided to come to see the spot or to remove the defect by making one excuse or the other. It is further contended that after waiting the Op for about six months, complainant re-hired the services of another expert mason and got affixed the said damaged portion of roof by purchasing new marble of Rs4,090/-vide bill dt 26.09.2015 and also paid Rs6000/-to the new mason for getting the work done. In getting the marble work done reaffixed over damaged portion of roof, complainant suffered heavy loss of Rs70,000/-which occurred due to stoppage of rainy water on the roof and also due to negligence, inexpertness and deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant asked OP to compensate the loss caused to him due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice dt 9.11.2015 to OP, which he refused to receive. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant for which he has prayed for accepting the complaint.

7                        We have heard the ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the documents placed on file and pleadings made by complainant in his exparte arguments.

8                      From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that OP did not do the work of affixation of marble in the floor of building of complainant properly and there is a clear-cut negligence on the part of OP. Due to unequal level of affixation of marble work on the roof of first floor of building of complainant, there was no proper drainage of rainy water over the roof and water was blocked on some portion of the roof due to unequal level of floor i.e 17x6 ½  on roof marble, 32 feet running marble and 15x4 ½ ft on black patti/marble got damaged, that occurred due to inexpertness of OP and due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP, which caused blockage of rainy water on roof and due to this marble was damaged and walls also got moisture. All this, caused great harassment, inconvenience and financial loss to complainant. Despite repeated requests of complainant and even after service of legal notice to OP, Opposite Party refused to pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant for removing the defect and under compelling circumstances, complainant had to purchase new marble worth Rs4090/- vide bill dt 26.09.2015 Ex C-4 and had to get it reaffixed by making payment to another mason. All these things amount to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP. Complainant has stressed on bill dt 2.02.2015 for Rs24,491/-Ex C-2, which reveals that complainant purchased marble worth Rs24,491/-from Punjab Marble House for affixation of same on his roof by OP. The bill dt 26.09.2015 for Rs4,090/- Ex C-4, also clears the point that complainant had to purchase marble for second time to equalize the level of floor, which was left unequal by OP. Legal notice Ex C-5, also clears that complainant was aggrieved due to deficiency in service by OP and registered cover containing notice Ex C-7 showing remarks of Postal Department that OP refused to accept the notice issued by complainant.

9                               From the above discussion and in the light of evidence produced by complainant, this Forum reaches at the conclusion that OP is not only deficient in providing services to complainant, rather he has also aggravated the  distress/harassment of complainant by not paying any heed to the genuine request of complainant to remove the defect caused by him. Complainant has adduced sufficient cogent evidence to prove the authenticity of his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby accepted. OP is directed to make payment of Rs.4,090/-to complainant, which he spent on purchasing the marble again to remove the defect caused by OP alongwith Rs.3500/-as labour charges for re-affixation of marble with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from the date of filing the complaint. OP is further directed to make payment of Rs3,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental tension and agony suffered by complainant besides Rs2,000/-as litigation expenses to complainant. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

 Announced in open Forum:

  Dated: 11.04.2016                         

 

Member                Member             President                 (Parampal Kaur)          (P Singla)           (Ajit Aggarwal)