Punjab

Sangrur

CC/434/2016

Dhanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhola Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Avtar Singh Harika

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                         

                                                Complaint No.  434

                                                Instituted on:    01.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       07.12.2016

 

Dhanjit Singh son of Pritam Singh, resident of Shekhpura Basti, H.No.476, Sunami Gate, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

Bhola Singh, Mason, son of Kesar Singh, resident of Kothi Vehra, Village Uppli, Tehsil & District Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite party

For the complainant  :               Shri A.S.Harika, Adv.

For Opposite Party   :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Dhanjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant wanted to construct a new house by demolishing his old house at Shekhupura Basti, Sangrur and as such, the complainant availed the service of the OP to construct a new house as per the site plan and Rs.500/- per day was settled as wages/labour with the OP and the OP started the work on 27.12.2015 and the ground floor lintel was made on 23.1.2016. It is stated further that the Op did not raised the construction as per the technical manner due to unskilled work of the OP, the complainant stopped the work and clear all his dues on 17.3.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant engaged another mason and labourer for the purpose of lintel, who told that all the walls of the house are not straight, as there are curves in the walls. The complainant also moved an application before the SHO PS City Sangrur against the OP, but all in vain.  Thereafter the complainant engaged Er. N.K. Gupta for detecting the defects, who told that the work done by brick mason is very poor and the walls of lobby are inclining 9 inch and thereafter the complainant spent Rs.1,50,000/- on the said construction and requested the Op to pay the same, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of wrong construction work and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the OP into unwanted litigation, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is false and frivolous and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP.  On merits, it is denied by the Op that he did any construction work of the complainant.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto. However, it is stated that the complainant approached the OP for the construction of basement upto first floor lintel. The OP after seeing the site plan noticed that the basement was not approved by the concerned authorities and the same is totally illegal, then the OP told that he will not construct the illegal construction of basement. It is further averred that the complainant told the OP that he has dig the land for the construction of basement and for that purpose he has spent huge amount, but the Op refused to do so.  Further no amount was ever received from the complainant by the OP. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of application dated 12.4.2016, Ex.C-2 copy of technical report, Ex.C-3 copy of map, Ex.C-4 copy of application dated 22.4.2016, Ex.C-5 copy of police report, Ex.C-6 copy of application, Ex.C-7 to Ex.C-10 affidavits and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that he availed the services of the OP by engaging him on daily wages/labour to construct a new house as per the site plan and the OP started the construction work on 27.12.2015 and the lintel of the same was made on 23.01.2016.  The main grievance of the complainant is that the Op did not do the construction work in a technical manner and due to the unskilled work of the OP, the complainant found that there was 9 inches curve in the walls and as such has contended deficiency in service and has claimed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- which he spent to raise the construction in a proper manner.  On the other hand, the stand of the Op is that the complainant never availed the services of the OP nor the complainant paid even a single penny for any work and as such has contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP in view of section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

6.             The complainant has produced on record the report of Gupta Architects as Ex.C-2 and an application submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur Ex.C-4 against the complainant to show that the OP raised the defective construction/defective walls and affidavit of Shri  N.K.Gupta, Ex.C-8. But, from these documents, we are unable to find that the complainant ever availed the services of the OP to construct the house.  The complainant has not produced on record any documentary evidence or any receipt of payment to show that he paid any consideration to the Op for availing any services from the OP for the construction of the house, nor, the complainant has produced any agreement to show that he ever availed the services of the OP.  In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record  that he availed any services from the OP, as such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant deserves dismissal on this score also.

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 7, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

                      

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member