Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/408

Dev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurbax Singh - Opp.Party(s)

A.S Tiwana

20 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

          

                                                                         RBT Complaint No. 408

 Instituted on:  08.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on  : 20.07.2023      

1.  
2. Dev Singh aged 67 years son of Sh. Babu Singh Resident of House nO.2629, Phase –II, Urban Estate, Patiala(Aadhar Card No.208200305246).                                        

                                                          …. Complainant.  

                                      Versus

1. Gurbax Singh, R/o Village Baghaura, PO Ghanaur, Tehsil Ghanaur, Distt. Patiala(M.No.98141-22172)                                                                                                     ….Opposite party. 

 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                         :  MEMBER

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

 

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

For the Op                        : Shri H.S. Virk & S.P.Singh,Adv.

 

ORDER BY

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER.

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Commission.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that in the month of April 2017 complainant approached to Op for renovation of his kitchen and Op agreed to renovate to Modular Kitchen in the house of complainant. Opposite party demanded a lum sum labour charge of Rs. 15,000/-. The complainant paid to Op a cash sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 22.4.2017 and Rs. 7500/- on 29.4.2017 as labour charges. The Op was executed receipts for both the payments. The old concrete shelf in complainant's kitchen were demolished by Op and Op told the complainant to bring PVC plywood sheets and other material. The PVC plywood sheets are very expensive as the cost of 1 Sheet is Rs. 3840/- and the complainant agreed to install said PVC plywood Sheets only on Op's recommendation as Op assured the complainant that these sheets will not get bend or loose and heavy items used in kitchen can be placed on it. The complainant had purchased the material of Rs. 94,300/-, chimney of Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 2000/- of labour to electrician and Raj Mistry and Op's labour charges of Rs. 17,500/-. After finishing the work Op demanded Rs. 2500/- extra alongwith Op's remaining payments of Rs. 5000/- on the pretext that Op did extra work in the kitchen. Within five months after completion of renovation of kitchen work, all PVC sheets bent from many places and all the wooden panes of Modular kitchen, interlocks of window panes became bent and loose toward downwards. The electric chimney and gas pipe were not installed by the Op properly. Complainant informed the Op four times on Op's mobile phone regarding the Problem/defects arose in the work done by the Op and Op failed to turn up and see the damage suffered by the complainant. So, the complainant engaged another car penter to remove the defects occurred in the work of modular kitchen done by Op. Complainant paid Rs. 7000/- to the subsequent car penter and had to purchase material of Rs. 9400/- to remove the defects.  Complainant had suffered of the above said huge lose due to Op's insufficiency, negligency. A registered notice was sent to the Op on 06.9.2018, which was received by Op and lastly prayed that to direct the Op be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,400/- as loss suffered by complainant due to Op's negligency, inefficiency and lack of knowledge how to make modular kitchen and to pay Rs.16000/- as compensation alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant against the Op.
2. Upon notice, Op has appeared and taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action has been arisen to file the complaint. Complaint is false, vague, baseless. Complainant issued a legal notice on 06.9.2018 and filed the complaint on 08.9.2018 which is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Complainant has not impleaded to Shiva plywood house as necessary party from where the complainant purchased the material used in the kitchen. Reply on merits, it is submitted that in the month of April, 2017 complainant approached Op for renovation of kitchen. It is denied that Op has demanded Rs. 15,000/- as labour charges. Op has received Rs. 17,500/- as labour charges and all the remaining allegation are denied by the Op as alleged by the complainant in his pleading. Op has no concern with the material, the material was purchased by complainant from Shiva Plywood. If there is any defect in material, then it is the responsibility of the Shiva Plywood House and Op has to implead the party to Shiva Plywood not against the Op. Complainant never informed the Op regarding the said problem. The Op has prepared the kitchen as per the demand of the complainant. The Op has not committed any deficiency in service. The Op installed material given by the complainant and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex. C-A affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. Op-A and closed the evidence.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer or not?
5. The averments of the complainant are that the Op did renovate to modular kitchen work in the house of complainant. Complainant paid Op a cash Sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 22.4.2017 and Rs. 7500/- on 29.4.2017 as labour charges for extra work. Op executed receipts for the both the payments, which are Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. Op told to the complainant to bring PVC plywood sheets and other material as per Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5. The cost of material is Rs. 64,800 + 9074+27,600 total Rs. 1,01,474/- alongwith GST paid by complainant. Within five months after completion of renovation of kitchen work, all PVC sheets installed by Op in the kitchen of complainant bent from many places alongwith all the window panes. Complainant informed the Op four times by mobile regarding the defects arose in the work done by Op in his kitchen but Op failed to turn up and see the damaged suffered by complainant. Complainant engaged another carpenter to remove the defect occurred in the work of modular kitchen done by Op. Complainant paid Rs. 7000/- as labour charges through cheque number 470589 dated 9.12.2017 of Syndicate Bank, Patiala to the subsequent carpenter as per Ex.C-7 dated 9.12.2017 and also purchased material of Rs. 9400/- as per Ex.C-6 dated 16.11.2017  to remove the defects in the modular kitchen made by Op. It transpire from the perusal of Ex.C-7 that the subsequent labourer namely Tarsem Kumar put his signature in English language on the receipt and stated that he did kitchen work from 30.11.2017 to 06.12.2017. This work has been done by two labourer  for one weak . This Commission has the considered opinion that when the complainant had renovated his kitchen in April 2017 and spent a sum of Rs 1,01,474 for material and Rs. 17,500/- as labour charges total Rs. 1,12,224/-. Then why he again purchased the material of Rs. 9400/- as per Ex.C-6 and paid again labour charges of Rs. 7000/- through cheque number 470589 dated 9.12.2017 to the subsequent labourer namely Tarsem Kumar. "A Man can lie, but document can't"
6. During Arguments the averments of the learned counsel for Op raised this issue as per reply of preliminary objections para no.5 pleaded that complainant issued legal notice to Op on 06.9.2018 and present complaint filed on 08.9.2018 after two days from the date of issuance of the legal notice which is not maintainable in the eye of law.
7. To trace out the veracity of truth, this Commission has minutely examined the document Ex.C-8 which is legal notice dated 04.09.2018. As per Ex.C-9 the postal receipt dispatched date was mentioned as 6.9.2018. It is writ large on the file that the present complaint in hand has been filed on 08.10.2018. This Commission has observed that the plea taken by Op with regard to complaint filed by complainant after two days from the date of issuance of legal notice i.e. 6.9.2018 is not proved by Op. Another issue raised by learned counsel for Op is that the complainant neither made a necessary party to seller or to the manufacturer from whom the material of kitchen  was purchased. The averments of learned counsel for Op Submitted that Op completed the work as directed by the complainant and complainant paid the labour charges of Rs.2500/- extra.
8. Per contra, During the rebuttal arguments the learned counsel for complainant specifically clarify this issue and pleaded in the complaint at para no.3 that Op demanded Rs. 2500/- extra on the pretext that Op did extra work in the kitchen. So, complainant paid Rs. 7500/- to Op on 29.4.2017. The further averments of the complainant that the Op has lack of knowledge with his skill. So, the complainant completed the repair of defective work from other technician. This Commission has with the careful analysis of the evidence available on record have no hesitation to hold this factum that the Op did not provide proper services as required to the complainant's kitchen. From this angle, Op is liable for deficiency in service qua the complainant.
9. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we Partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Op to pay Rs. 16,000/- to the complainant. Further the Ops are directed to pay consolidate sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the complainant.
10. This order be complied by Op within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of order.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
12. The file be return to the District Consumer Commission, Patiala. The Copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules by the District Consumer Commission, Patiala.  

                                Announced.

                                JULY 20, 2023.