Haryana

Kurukshetra

52/2017

Ajit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bishamber - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Tandon

25 Apr 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:     52 of 2017.

                                                                   Date of institution:         28.02.2017.

                                                                   Date of decision:  25.04.2022

 

Ajit Singh son of Sardar Dharam Singh Sandhu, age about 48 years, resident of Diwan Colony, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                     Versus

 

Bishambar Singh son of Shri Gian Chand, Proprietor of Shri Vishwakarma Welding and Body Works, Cheeka Road, near Prima Palace, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

...Respondent.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “Act”).

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that complainant purchased a tempo bearing registration No. HR-65A-4991 from one Jaspal Singh son of Kartar Singh, r/o village Morthali, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. On 30.09.2016, he parked the said tempo in the workshop of the OP and also specified to him some special requirements in respect of the tempo body works, which were agreed by the OP in such work. The whole assignment work terms and conditions were witnessed by Sardar Sucha Singh s/o Shri Jaswant Singh, r/o Kanta Farm, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The tempo was left in the workshop of OP on 3.10.2016 and whole consideration of the job was agreed at Rs.17000/- and the complainant has paid the sum of Rs.8000/- in advance to the OP. The OP had to make front and rear bumper in heavy steel to create a hole for cooling box setting, as already designed in the original body, to prepare dalla 7.6 size, fatta box and ladder, to make lock cover for diesel tank and battery tank and the same whole work was required to be completed within three to four days from the date of assignment i.e. 03.10.2016. It is further stated that despite clear cut instructions of returning the vehicle within three days after completion of the said work given to the OP, the OP party took 10-12 days time and for such delay, the complainant had to bear extra cost of loading and unloading tent items through another vehicle and also beared extra salary of driver, who was appointed at the time of giving the vehicle to the OP. At the time of delivery the vehicle, following defects were found:-

1. Front Bumper although of settle was made of inferior quality and poor design and even it has been broken due to sub-standard material used by OP.
2. Rear Bumper was made of iron, instead of steel, despite directions to   prepare it in steel.
3. Side mirror of both sides damaged, as it beared spots of welding, which are too dangerous to drive with.
4. The whole original colour of roof body was completely burnt due to welding spots all over the roof, which made the whole vehicle of bad look and appearance.
5. Hole was not created in the body for fooling box.
6. Dalla was of size of as 7.2 ft despite specification of 7.6 ft.
7. Body pillar lines were of unsymmetrical in its shape and size.
8. No ladder was prepared.
9. No fatta box was prepared.
10. Diesel Tank lock cover was not made.
11. Battery tank cover was not made.
12. Front mirror was totally damaged due to excessive welding spots, which is very dangerous to drive with, at night.

 

3.                It is further submitted that the complainant approached the OP with a request to remove the discrepancies in the tempo, but nothing has been done by the OP. The complainant also registered a complaint before the SHO, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra in this regard and the matter is still pending. The complainant also got issued the legal notice dated 19.11.2016 through his counsel requesting the OP to remove the discrepancies and to get the remaining amount of Rs.9000/-, but nothing has been done, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the OP, causing him mental agony, harassment and financial loss, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs before this Commission.

4.                On receipt of notice of complaint, OP appeared and filed written statement, disputing the claim of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant had engaged the services of the OP for the accessories of tempo bearing No. HR-65A-4991 and ordered to make the whole body, bumper front steel, safety pipe, U-Hook and Tool box and cabin basket and the OP has completed the job of tempo. When the tempo of complainant was standing in front of the shop of the OP, then in the absence of the OP, the complainant had taken the tempo without paying the bill, from the shop of OP. The OP insisted the matter and demanded Rs.41,500/- as cost of the job, from the complainant, but the complainant avoided the matter on one pretext or the other and filed the complaint in the Court. The OP has done the work of Rs.41,500/- on the tempo, but the complainant has failed to pay the said amount and filed this false complaint. It is denied that the assignment was witnessed by Jaswant Singh resident of Kanta   Farm Pehowa and it is also denied that the work was agreed to be done in Rs.17000/- and the complainant paid the amount of  Rs.8000/- in advance. It is submitted that the work was not to be done as stated by the complainant, such as, OP had to make front and rear bumper in heavy steel to create a hole for cooling body to prepare dalla of the size of 7.6ft. All other allegations made by the complainant have been denied specifically and it was submitted that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.                The complainant, in support of his complaint has filed affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-17 and closed his evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the OP, in support of his case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-5 and closed his evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

8.                Shri Shekhar Thakur, counsel for the complainant argued that complainant purchased a tempo bearing registration No. HR-65A-4991 from one Jaspal Singh and on 30.09.2016, he parked the said tempo in the workshop of the OP and also specified to him some special requirements in respect of the tempo body works, which were agreed by the OP in such work. The whole assignment work terms and conditions were witnessed by Sardar Sucha Singh s/o Shri Jaswant Singh, r/o Kanta Farm, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. The tempo was left in the workshop of OP on 03.10.2016 and whole consideration of the job was agreed at Rs.17,000/- and the complainant paid the sum of Rs.8000/- in advance to the OP. The OP party took 10-12 days time to do the same and for such delay, the complainant had to bear extra cost of loading and unloading tent items through another vehicle and also beared extra salary of driver, who was appointed at the time of giving the vehicle to the OP. He further argued that at the time of delivery the vehicle, following defects were found, which are evident from photographs of tempo in question as Ex.C1 to Ex.C12:-

1. Front Bumper although of settle was made of inferior quality and poor design and even it has been broken due to sub-standard material used by OP.
2. Rear Bumper was made of iron, instead of steel, despite directions to   prepare it in steel.
3. Side mirror of both sides damaged, as it beared spots of welding, which are too dangerous to drive with.
4. The whole original colour of roof body was completely burnt due to welding spots all over the roof, which made the whole vehicle of bad look and appearance.
5. Hole was not created in the body for fooling box.
6. Dalla was of size of as 7.2ft despite specification of 7.6.
7. Body pillar lines were of unsymmetrical in its shape and size.
8. No ladder was prepared.
9. No fatta box was prepared.
10. Diesel Tank lock cover was not made.
11. Battery tank cover was not made.
12. Front mirror was totally damaged due to excessive welding spots, which is very dangerous to drive with, at night.

 

9.                It is further argued that the complainant also registered a complaint before the SHO, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra in this regard and the matter is still pending. The complainant also got issued the legal notice dated 19.11.2016 through his counsel requesting the OP to remove the discrepancies and to get the remaining amount of Rs.9000/-, but nothing has been done, which amounts to negligence and deficiency in services on the part of the OP. To support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Sri Chanchal Ghosh Vs. M/s Rajarshi Motors Pvt. Ltd., Appeal No.FA43 of 2007, DOD 16.06.2008 (State Commission).  

10.              Shri R.K. Gupta, counsel for the OP argued that the complainant had engaged the services of the OP for the accessories of tempo bearing No. HR-65A-4991 and OP had completed the job of tempo, but when the tempo was standing in front of the shop of the OP, then in the absence of the OP, the complainant had taken the tempo without paying the bill, from the shop of OP. The OP has done the work of Rs.41,500/- on the tempo, but the complainant has failed to pay the said amount and filed this false complaint. The OP filed an application in this regard before Labour and Compromise Officer, Kurukshetra on 01.07.2017, who directed to raise this issue before the Civil Court, but since the OP party could not afford the Court fees, therefore, this complaint has been filed before this Commission. It is lastly argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

11.              Indisputably, the complainant hired the services of OP for job of body work of tempo in question. The dispute between the parties is with regard to completion/non-completion/incompletion of job-works of tempo in question, done by the OP as per alleged mutual contract between the parties.                   

12.              As per complainant, the OP had not completed the job-work of the tempo, as per agreed terms and conditions Ex.C14, which were witnessed by Sardar Sucha Singh s/o Shri Jaswant Singh, r/o Kanta Farm, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, and returned the tempo after 10-12 days instead of three days. On the other hand, the OP contended that he completed all the job-works, as per assignment, but complainant, without paying the balance consideration amount, in his absence, taken the tempo in question.

13.              The case of complainant is revolving around one alleged hand written document Ex.C14, wherein, job-works to be done by the OP was written by hand. There is written total consideration amount of Rs.17,000/-, out of which, Rs.8000/- were shown as advance paid on 30.09.2016 and this advance amount was also admitted by the OP in their reply, but the OP contended total consideration amount was Rs.41,500/-, instead of Rs.17,000/-, as alleged by the complainant. The complainant alleged that he filed his complaint before the SHO, PS Pehowa, in this regard, against the OP and produced the same on the case file as Ex.C15, but perusal of this document, it is found that this document does not bear any receiving or seal of the concerned Police Station. Moreover, complainant failed to produce any documents to show the fate of this complaint. 

14.               From the rival contentions of the parties, we found that there are intricate questions of law and facts involved that whether the alleged contract Ex.C14, between the parties, had been fully/partly executed by the OP or not and both the parties have failed to place documentary evidence, on the file, to prove their respective version in this regard and without which, it is not possible for this Commission to come to any conclusion. Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence, and the same is not possible in the summary proceedings, before this Commission, and Civil Court is the best platform for deciding the same. In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled as Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC), wherein, it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court or any other appropriate forum. 

15.              Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Civil Court or Court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired, and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint, shall be exempted. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Dated:25.04.2022.     

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    (Member).                                     DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.