THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 332 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 28.11.2014.
Date of Decision: -05.09.2017.
Ramavtar son of Shri Musdiram, caste Mahajan, resident of near Bhootowli Dharamshala, Lohad Bazar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Chanderbhan son of Shri Devkaran, resident of village Hansawas Khurd, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
…...OP.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- Shri Vinod Parmar, Advocate for complainant
Shri Ram Mehta, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the OP did not prepare the doors and windows of wood according to the size given by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant totally paid a sum of Rs. 1,18,570/- to the OP for the woods purchased by him from the OP. The OP did not complete the work in time. It is alleged that the OP has filed an application with the Labour Inspector, Bhiwani to dismiss the application of the OP. The OP has also filed an application under the payment of wages act also pending. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP, he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.He
2. On appearance, OP filed written statement and took preliminary objections and denied the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that the OP did the work for a total sum of Rs. 1,82,960/- and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only were paid and a sum of Rs. 1,62,960/- is still to be paid by the complainant to the OP and the matter regarding recovery is subjudic before the Civil Court. It is submitted that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only were paid in phases against the work done by the OP. It is submitted that the wooden work was completed to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and it is the complainant, who has not paid the arrears despite repeated request. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into the evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP did not prepare the doors and windows of wood according to the size given by the complainant. The complainant totally paid a sum of Rs. 1,18,570/- to the OP for the woods purchased by him from the OP. The OP did not complete the work in time. He submitted that the OP has filed an application with the Labour Inspector, Bhiwani to dismiss the application of the OP. The OP has also filed an application under the payment of wages act also pending.
7. Learned counsel for Opposite Party reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the wood work of the house of the complainant was done by the OP in time and a sum of Rs. 1,82,960/- was payable by the complainant to the OP and out of which the complainant has paid Rs. 20,000/- only and remaining amount is payable by the complainant to OP. He submitted that the application of the OP under the payment of wages act is pending before concerned authorities and to counter the application of the OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP.
8. In view of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have perused the relevant record carefully. The complainant has filed the photo copies of the litigation between both the parties pending before Labour Inspector, Bhiwani and the authority under the payment of wages act. On the other side, the OP has filed his affidavit alongwith the affidavit of two other persons. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his contention that the OP has committed any deficiency in service as alleged by him in the complaint. The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable only for the defects in the goods or the deficiency in service availed of by the consumer. There is no iota of evidence on behalf of the complainant in this regard to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint. Considering the facts of the case and the material on the file, the complainant has utterly failed to prove his case. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-05.09.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
