DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No : 218/2014.
Date of Institution : 13.10.2014.
Date of Decision : 11.5.2015.
In the matter of:
Makhan Singh son of Inder Singh, resident of Bhaini Mehraj, Tehsil and District Barnala.
...Complainant
Versus
Gurchet Singh son of Surinder Singh, resident of Bhaini Mehraj, Tehsil and District Barnala. ...Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before:-
1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.
Sh. Karnail Singh : Member.
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member.
For the complainant : Sh. H.S. Ranu, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate
ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:
Makhan Singh complainant (herein referred as to CC for short), has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Party (herein referred as to O.P for short), on the ground that, CC intended to construct a house and in order to raise construction CC had availed the service of O.P and entered into an oral agreement as per custom prevailing in their village, with the O.P.
It is alleged that, as per agreement between the parties, O.P agreed to do the work at the rate of Rs. 130/- per square feet. The settlement was done in the presence of Gurdeep Singh son of Makhan Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Ghudar Singh and Tinu son of Teja Singh, residents of Bhaini Mehraj. The total area of house was 2500 Sq. feet (approx.).
It is further alleged that, after agreement O.P started the construction work of the house of the CC on 3.3.2014, but during the construction work ( at the time of laying of roof lintel ) O.P has not left any place for fixation of fans and tubes and has also not installed underground pipes in the roof lintel, for the supply of electricity to fans and tube lights. It is alleged that, some part of the iron (Saria) on roof was not covered with Cement and Bajri and due to this act of the O.P, at the time of rain, the roof started leakage from the holes and point where drill machine has used by O.P. It is further alleged that, the doors of the house were not open or close properly. The level of the floor is not equal and there are some bends and cracks and level of the front floor is higher than the level of rear floor of the house. The raw material including sanitation/cement, sand are in vain. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint that, building expert opinion will be produced during evidence.
It is further alleged that, when CC brought these facts in the notice of O.P, he remained putting the matter on one pretext or the other. It is specifically alleged that, CC has been paid Rs. 3,25,000/- to the O.P. CC approached the O.P time and again and made several requests to him to repair the above said damage of building and paid the compensation for damaged work, but of no use.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, CC has sought the following reliefs.-
a) OP be directed to repair the damaged part of the building of the CC on his own expenses.
b) Further, OP be directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses.
The complaint of the CC is signed and is also verified. Further, the complaint is supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. In reply, OP has raised a number of legal objections on the ground that, CC has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present complaint against the O.P, as there is no oral or written agreement between the parties. Further, the complaint of the CC is misconceived, malafide and not maintainable. The jurisdiction of this Forum is also challenged etc.
On merits, all the allegations of the CC are denied. It is denied that, there is any alleged oral agreement regarding the construction of house of CC @ Rs.130/- per sq. ft. It is also denied that, this settlement was done in the presence of Gurdeep Singh son of Makhan Singh, Jagtar Singh son of Ghudar Singh and Tinu son of Teja Singh,
It is averred that, the house of the CC was constructed by the O.P on daily basis, as the O.P is a rajgiri mistri. It is further averred that, out of the aforesaid alleged three witnesses, one Gurdeep Singh is the real son of CC and other two witnesses are working as seeri/labourers with the CC for the last so many years. It is averred that, the work of construction started by the O.P on 6.3.2014 and the electricity fitting in the house is complete. There are sufficient underground pipes for the supply of electricity and there are also proper places for the installation of fans and tubes etc. It is averred that, the work was done by the O.P in a very polite manner and as per the directions of the CC.
It is further submitted that, in the work of construction of house, the O.P was not in need of any drill machine, so the question of holes does not arise at all. It is specifically submitted that, O.P has not done the wooden and floor work as alleged in the complaint, as the O.P is only a “rajgiri mistri”. It is further submitted that, O.P has only constructed the house of the CC and the floor work of the room was done by other mistri named Kala Singh. It is submitted that, all the levels for fixation of doors are upto mark. It is further submitted that, if some old doors or windows have to be fixed in new house then door or windows have to be adjusted after some modification. It is submitted that, O.P received total amount of Rs. 55,000/- approximately, from the CC.
Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP has prayed for the dismissal of complaint. Version of the O.P is signed and verified.
3. The CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-44, which included site plan of house, photographs, affidavit of Gurdeep Singh, affidavit of Tinu, affidavit of CC, affidavit of Jagtar Singh and closed his evidence.
4. On the other hand, O.P in support of its version has tendered into evidence Ex.O.P1 to O.P3, which included affidavit of Dalwar Singh, affidavit of Chamkaur Singh, affidavit of Gurchet Singh and closed the evidence.
5. We have gone through the complaint, version filed by the O.P and heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for the parties at length.
The case of the CC is that, he entered into an oral agreement with the O.P to construct his house and it was agreed between the parties that, the construction will be completed @ Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. The O.P has not constructed the house properly and there is leakage in the roof and window pouring down during the rains and the level of the floor is not proper. The wooden work done by the O.P is also not upto the mark.
In reply, the O.P has submitted that, there was no contract between the parties and he had only undertook the mason work on daily wages. All the alleged three witnesses mentioned in the complaint by the O.P are his known. Gurdeep Singh is his real son, whereas the other two have been engaged by him as labourer, to work in the field. The O.P has further submitted that, the floor work and the wooden work has not been done by him, because he is only a 'rajgiri mistri' and the mason work done by him as per the instructions of the CC.
After hearing the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, we find that, there is no written agreement with regard to the alleged contract placed on record. The O.P has alleged that, Gurdeep Singh is the real son of the CC and when we going through the document Ex.C-41, which is an affidavit of Gurdeep Singh we do find that, he has been mentioned as son of Makhan Singh, whereas the Makhan Singh is the complainant in the present complaint. We further gone through the contents of the affidavit of other witnesses namely Tinu and Jagtar Singh, we do find that, there is nothing extra in the contents of the affidavit except in the name of the other co-witnesses. It appears that, the affidavits have been in a mechanical manner and there is nothing about time and date when the deponents had visited the house of the CC and what was occasion of their visit and even the deponents have free access to the house of the CC.
The evidence lead by the CC is not impartial and is a biased evidence, so the evidence lead by him lead us to believe that, the deponent of affidavit Ex.C-41 is the son of the CC and the other two persons have been engaged by him for his field work.
We have also gone through the affidavit of the CC Ex.C-43, we find that, CC has submitted in his affidavit dated 16.1.2015 that, “Building Expert opinion will be produced during evidence” and in the complaint the same wording has been mentioned, but on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we do not find any evidence with regard to the building expert.
Further, the CC has alleged that, the floor work and wooden work done by the O.P is not proper, but in the absence of any satisfactory and impartial evidence we are unable to swallow the version of the CC, as the O.P is only a “rajgiri mistri” and there is no other evidence to prove that, wooden work has also done by the O.P. CC has failed to bring on record any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in support of his case.
So, keeping in view the facts stated above and in the lights of documents tendered by both the parties, we are of the opinion that, the CC has not been able to prove his version and accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. However, there is no order as to cost. Parties to bear their own expenditure. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th day of May, 2015
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President.
I do agree.
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
