Haryana

StateCommission

A/795/2014

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.K.C. Singla - Opp.Party(s)

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

Appeal No.795 of 2014 in

F.A. No.955 of 2011

Date of the Institution:05.07.2011

and 18.07.2011

Date of Decision: 20.10.2016

 

Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Ramautar R/o Village Neerpur, Tehsil  Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

Dr.K.C. Singla son of Sh.Ram,Chander Singla, r/o opposite Talab Bahadur Singh, Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rao Ajender Singh, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Ms.Neha Jain, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

          This appeal has been filed by Ashok Kumar against the Order dated 20.05.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul (In short “District Forum”) whereby the complaint of the respondent-complainant was allowed and the opposite party has been directed to refund Rs.1,35,814/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, in addition compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.1100/-.

2.      Briefly stated, complainant gave construction work of his residential house to the opposite party (O.P.). The total area of the house and construction charges was as under

          “House                Total           Square feet         Construction charges

Ground Floor      1380.55                        Rs.485/-

First Floor            1073                                       Rs.525/-

 Complainant alleged that he paid total sum of Rs.12,51,576/- to O.P, but, he used the sub standard material in construction. O.P. received excess amount of Rs.1,35,814/- from him. He requested the O.P. to refund the excess amount, but, O.P. did not refund the excess amount. 

3.      Aggrieved against the deficiency in service of the respondent/appellant approached the District Forum for issuance of directions to the O.P. to pay excess amount of Rs.1,35,814/- alongwith  interest and also directed the opposite party to reconstruct the house  with good quality of material.

4.      Opposite party pleaded that he did not construct the house of complainant as there was no written contract between them. O.P. denied that he did not receive any payment.  He never purchased any construction material from any shop as complainant himself purchased construction material from different shops. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      The learned District Forum accepting the averments made by the complainant, allowed the complaint as stated above.

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

7.      The perusal of the record has established the fact that there was no agreement for construction of any house between the complainant and the OP, nor has any evidence been produced by the complainant establishing the construction of the house in dispute by the O.P. Further, no documentary proof whatsoever produced on record to establish the fact that any payment was made by the complainant to the O.P, in lump-sum or in installments. No bank record e.g. Cheque/voucher has been produced. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant inspires confidence i.e. the complainant had himself got the house constructed by engaging his own labour and by making purchases of the building material himself directly. In this situation, no privity of contract came into existence and the appellant cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service. The appellant in his written statement has categorically denied all the averments made by the complainant, hence, no relief whatsoever could be granted to him. Under these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be upheld and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly we allow the appeal and dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

 

October 20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.