Punjab

Nawanshahr

CC/37/2017

Joga Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurmeet Lal Alias Kala - Opp.Party(s)

Lakhwinder Singh Banga

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH NAGAR.

                  

Consumer Complaint No.      :  37 of 20.07.2017        

Date of Decision                  :  11.12.2017

Joga Singh, aged about 40 years, son of Tara Singh Resident of Mohalla Rautan, Town Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar 89681-28955.      

                                                                    ….Complainant

Versus

Gurmeet Lal @ Kala, aged about 50 years, son of Sarwan Lal R/o Mohalla Sarafan, Town Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar. 

                                                                             ….Opposite Party

          Complaint under Section 12 of

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Counsel for the parties:

For complainant            :         In person.

For OP                           :         In person.

 

QUORUM:

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

S.KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

 

ORDER

S.KARNAIL SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.       The instant complaint filed by complainant wherein it is alleged that complainant is permanent resident of Mohalla Rautan, Town Rahon, Tehsil Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.  The OP is mason by profession. In the month of July 2016, complainant hired services of respondent for carrying out the construction of his house in the Abadi of Mohalla Rautan, Rahon, for total mason charges of Rs.1,05,000/-. Later on a writing to this effect made on 01.08.2016 which was duly signed by the parties. It was settled between the parties that payment of Rs.35,000/- will be paid to the OP at the time of commencement of the construction and Rs.40,000/- will be paid at the time of opening lintel and remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- will to be paid after completion of entire construction i.e. plastering of the walls, roofs and constructions of gutter.  It was also settled that old walls of the house will be demolished, pillars will be erected and thereafter lintel will be laid on the roofs of house , but instead of demolishing the old walls, the respondent erected the pillars and laid lintel on the roofs of the house on the support of pillars.  Respondent requested the complainant to make payment of Rs.40,000/- as he is in need of the same and assured the complainant that he will raise construction as settled.  After considering the request of the OP, the amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid to OP but after receiving the said amount, OP refused to carry out the construction of house and also refused to return the amount of Rs.40,000/-.  Instead of returning the amount of Rs.40,000/-, he raised the dispute with complaint. Then complaint was made against OP to S.S.P. SBS Nagar, which was entrusted to Police Station, Rahon but no action was taken against OP.  Copy of complaint is attached.  The complainant got the construction completed by hiring the services of other masons.  Despite repeated request of complainant, the OP has not returned the amount of Rs.40,000/-, rather threatening the complainant to meet dire consequences.  Due to said act of the OP, the complainant has suffered harassment and mental agony for which the complainant is entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. 

2.       The complainant asked to OP to make payment of Rs.40,000/- as well as damages to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental harassment but he has refused to do the same few days back in the presence of respectable persons.  Cause of action has arisen to complainant from the refusal of OP to admit the right and the claim as stated above and accordingly necessity arose to complainant to file this complaint with prayer that complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to make payment of Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest from August 2016 till realization and OP be also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to complainant. 

3.       Notice of complaint was given to OP who appeared and filed written statement, whereby submitted that instant complaint is totally false and based upon frivolous story.  Further, complainant entered into written compromise with the OP before the Panchayat.  The said compromise was got effected in the presence of M.C. and other persons.  Apart from that the complainant also file a case before Permanent Lok Adalat but the same was dismissed as withdrawn.  Replying OP is working as mason and he agreed to construct two rooms and one kitchen of the complainant and for that it was agreed that complainant will pay Rs.1,05,000/- and out of which the OP received only Rs.70,000/- and work is almost completed and there remains very small portion of the work which was stopped by brother of the complainant by getting stay order.  Thereafter, OP requested for return of Rs.35,000/- as well as for returning of shuttering articles and its hire charges of Rs.30,000/- but instead of paying Rs.65,000/-, the complainant has filed instant complaint which is totally false and same may be dismissed. 

 4.      In order to prove the case, complainant has tendered into evidence his on affidavit Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Jagtar Singh Ex.CW2 alongwith photocopies of some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.       Similarly, OP has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2, affidavit of Subash Chander Ex.OP3, affidavit of Smt.Bhajno Ex.OP4 and affidavit of Sandeep Kumar Ex.OP5, affidavit of Jeevan Ram Ex.OP6, affidavit of Harmesh Lal Ex.OP7 and then closed the evidence.

6.       We have heard both the parties in person and also scanned the case file very minutely.

7.       After considering over all circumstances, we came to conclusion that the factum in regard to construction of house of complainant by OP on contract basis for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- is admitted fact.  The complainant alleged that the OP had received Rs.40,000/- but he failed to complete work but now he refused to return the said amount.  But on the other hand, the OP took plea that he has received Rs.70,000/- out of total amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and work as agreed have been completed almost but instead of paying remaining agreed amount of Rs.35,000/- plus hire charges of shuttering articles of Rs.30,000/- i.e. in total Rs.65,000/-.  Rather, he illegally retained the shuttering articles of the OP.  No doubt, to prove his claim the complainant has tendered his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and in support of his oral version the complainant has also produced affidavit of Jagtar Singh whose affidavit is Ex.CW2.  The complainant as well as said Jagtar Singh alleged that the OP has not completed the work and work was got completed from other mason and labourer for the best known reasons neither the complainant nor the said Jagtar Singh in his affidavit categorically named the said mason and labourer from whom the remaining work was got done, which shows that the complainant made concocted story just to harass the OP, whereas the OP has himself admitted that he received total amount of Rs.70,000/- out of agreed amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and also admitted that he completed work, for that matter was gone before the Panchayat wherein Subash Chander – M.C. was also present and whose affidavit is Ex.OP-3, he categorically fortify the version of the OP.  Smt.Bhajno wife of Jeet Ram also supported the version of the OP whose affidavit is Ex.OP-4 and further three labourer namely Sandeep Kumar, Jeevan Ram and Harmesh Lal who worked with the OP at the house of the complainant also brought their affidavit Ex.OP-5 to Ex.OP-7 and categorically deposed that construction of the complainant as agreed was completed and further alleged that complainant is not paying the remaining agreed amount of Rs.35,000/- and hire charges of shuttering amounting to Rs.30,000/- and total amount of Rs.65,000/-.  So from over all circumstances it become clear that the oral evidence brought by the OP is more reliable then the solitary submission of complainant and as such we reached to conclusion that the complainant could not able to prove the allegations as made in the complaint and therefore, the complaint of the complaint is without merits and same is dismissed.    

8.       Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.       Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules.

Dated 11.12.2017                                                         

                              

(Kanwaljeet Singh)                (Karnail Singh)

Member                                  President