Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/725/2010

Narata Ram age 64 years s/o Sh.Biru Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gyan Chand s/o sh.Lakhmi Chand, - Opp.Party(s)

DK Garg

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                               Complaint No…725  of 2010.

                                                                                               Date of institution: 8.8.2010

                                                                                               Date of decision: 8.9.2015

Narata Ram son of late Sh. Biru Ram, resident of village Pinjori, P.O. Pabni Kalan, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

Gyan Chand son of Sh. Lakhmi Dass, resident of Village Dhanoura (Mukand Majri) P.O. Dhanoura, Tehsil Barara, Distt. Ambala.   

                                                                                                                                                             …Opposite party.

             

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. D.K.Garg, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

               OP already ex-parte.   

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Narata Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986..

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the complainant engaged  the respondent (hereinafter referred as OP ) for constructing chips flooring in four rooms, kitchen, lobby, gallery and porch ( about 1600 sq. ft. area) and other works of his house situated at village Pinjori, P.O. Pabni Kalan, Sub Tehsil Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar, during the period from 3.12.2009 to 28.1.2010 and the OP demanded Rs. 14/- per sq. ft. i.e. near about Rs. 30,000/- for the abovesaid work. The work assigned to the OP was with clear understanding that he will give quality work of standard to the complainant, as he represented to the complainant regarding experience of many years in construction of building and other flooring work. It has been further stated that huge amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for procurement of all material needed for chips, flooring and other works  on the instruction of the OP from time to time was spent and had                          also paid full contractual/labour charges amount of Rs. 30,000/- as agreed and demanded by the OP for his service. After some time when the OP started the work of rubbing and polishing of his floor he found that floor has become uneven at many places which clearly shows that he misrepresented about his experience in building work, thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Thereafter, the complainant got served a registered legal notice dated 3.4.2010, reminder dated 16.4.2010 and further reminder dated 24.5.2010 but despite it OP did not accede the request made by the complainant in his notice as well as reminders. As such, there is a great negligence and deficiency in service on the parts of OP. Hence, OP be directed to make the payment of entire loss i.e. cost of material plus labour charges of Rs. 2,30,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 24% per annum from January, 2010 till its payment and further to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, physical harassment, financial loss and Rs. 11,000/- on account of cost of proceedings.  

3.                     Upon notice, OP failed to appear despite service through registered post and as such he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7.10.2010. 

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, Affidavit of Maan Singh son of Sewa Ram R/o village Yaseen Majra, P.O.Sadhaura as Annexure CW/B, Affidavit of Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Pala Ram, resident of village Kulchandu P.O. Pabni Kalan as Annexure CW/C, Affidavit of Surender Kumar son of Sh. Narata Ram as Annexure CW/D  and documents such as Copy of legal notice dated 5.4.2010, 16.4.2010 & 24.5.2010 as Annexure C-1 to C-3, Report of Local Commissioner as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of Photographs of  chips, flooring etc. as Annexure C-5 to C-14 and closed his evidence.   

5.                     We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued that the complainant engaged the OP for constructing chips flooring in four rooms, kitchen, lobby, gallery and porch i.e. about 1600 sq. ft area and for the other work of his house situated at village Pinjori, P.O. Pabni Kalan during the period from 3.12.2009 to 28.1.2010, OP demanded Rs. 14/- per sq. ft i.e. near about Rs. 30,000/- for the abovesaid work. It has been further argued that the work assigned to the OP was with clear understanding that he will give quality work of standard to the complainant. It has been argued that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was spent for procurement of all material needed for chips flooring and other works by the complainant and he had also paid Rs. 30,000/- as agreed and demanded by the OP for his service. After some time when the complainant started the work of rubbing and polishing of his floor he noticed that floor has become uneven from many places which clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP as work of the construction was not to the satisfaction of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got served a registered legal notice and reminders but the OP did not accede the request made by the complainant.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that as the work of the OP was not satisfactory, thereafter a local commissioner was appointed and the report of the Local Commissioner is Annexure C-4 and as per his report, the construction of the chips floor and terrazzo floor is not proper. The panel partitions made with glass strips are improper and level of various panels is different. The colour of the floor is not uniform which is due to improper grinding and polishing. The root cause behind the finish is because the level of the floor is not proper and as a result of it the finishing after grinding & polishing is not up to the mark. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that to prove his case, complainant has filed affidavit of Sh. Maan Singh as Annexure CW/B, Affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar as Annexure CW/C and affidavit of Surender Kumar as Annexure CW/D and lastly prayed that from the above noted evidence, it is clear that there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled to get the cost of construction as well as compensation for harassment.

8.                     The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable firstly on the ground that complainant has totally failed to file any documentary evidence regarding the ownership of the house in question. Secondly, learned counsel for the complainant has also failed to file any documentary evidence to prove any agreement for construction with the Op or any receipt of the payment made to the OP for hiring of his services for construction of flooring etc. Even the complainant has not disclosed any date and month or year in which he made the payment to the OP. Further, the complainant has totally failed to produce any detail of expenses incurred on the construction work as well as flooring etc. as stated by him in his complaint. The report of the local commissioner is also having no weightage in the eye of law as this report has been prepared in the absence of OP. Even the name of the person in whose presence the site was inspected has also not disclosed.  Moreover, Sub Divisional Engineer who prepared this report has not mentioned that how he identified the house in question. Hence, the complainant cannot take any benefit from his report. Further the evidence lead by way of affidavit as Annexure CW/B, CW/C and CW/D is also not having any weightage as it can be easily procured. Moreover, affidavit as Annexure CW/D is of his son.

9.                     Though in the present complaint, the OP has neither filed written statement nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

10.                   Sequel of the above mentioned discussion is that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP, therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 Announced: 8.9.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.