Haryana

Ambala

CC/265/2015

Shravan Kumar Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jagdish Chawla,Architect cum Building Contactor, - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                             Complaint Case No. : 265 of 2015

                                                             Date of Institution    : 17.09.2015

                                                             Date of Decision      : 30-06-2017

Shravan Kumar Arya, Owner of H. No. 192-B, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Citgy Cantt. Haryana.  

……Complainant.

Versus

1. Jagdish Chawla, Architect cum Building Contractor, Vill. Chabiyana, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.
2. Jagdish Chawla, Architect cum Building Contractor, Shop No. 12, Gulati Market, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.  

……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.                                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Ashutosh Aggarwal, counsel for the OPs.              

ORDER.    

                    In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had given work of house renovation on contract basis given to the parties No. 1 and 2 for the renovation of ground floor of my house H. No. 192-B, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt. (inclusive of labour and material), which includes the moduler kitchen with all accessory, modern bathroom, store room and drawing room s per the design prepared and finalized by the complainant including all the costs, like labour for reconstruction, demolition of old construction, removal of debris and provide raw material which shall be required for new construction and paint of all wall, doors and windows and marble floor with finishing and all other required job for completion of renovation assigned to the parties No. 1 and 2 as mutually agreed by both parties. The above said renovation job was to be completed by him at a total cost of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the job was to be completed by 10^th April 2015 and the amount was to be paid to him on the basis of work progress and the work for renovation was to be done by skilled labour and masons and the material quality should be best in market. The renovation work started on 26-02-2015 and advance amount of Rs. 15,000/- was given to him to start the work. During the work, an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- as advanced given to opposite parties but the job work is still pending from the level of finishing of marble and all white was work, partial job of kitchen, store and bathroom fittings and electrical wiring along with switches were incomplete. Due to the fault of the opposite parties, the work delayed for more than one and half months and the work is still pending but the opposite parties said that there is no labour in market. After waiting more than one month, complainant sent an email to Mr. Jagdish Chawla on 18-05-2015 for completion of work. Thereafter, reply of Mr. Jagdish Chawla was received. Complainant again sent an email to opposite parties on 21-05-2015. It is further submitted that inspite of doing job, he demanded more money for his house hold expenses and asked to pay Rs. 5,000/- to carpenter Anil Dhiman otherwise work will be stopped. The opposite parties have received an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- out of 1,25,000/-. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 61,841/- against the balance work labour and various materials which were to be provided by him and the labour cost of marble finishing was also paid by the complainant. Ultimately, complainant at his own level got completed his work and spent the money on removal of malba from street cost of Rs. 600/-, cement bags Rs. 2,610/-, handle of kitchen Rs. 2700/-, labour for store pluster Rs.850/-, front window fittings labour Rs. 600/-, labour of shifiting of RO & wash basin Rs. 600/-, Tiles and marble Rs. 8640/-, tile Rs. 190/-, labour for removal old malba 3000/-, plumber labour Rs. 3600/- Electrical material Rs. 1140/- and 1480/-, Labour Rs. 4288/-, plumber material and labour 536/-, board payment Rs. 1527/-, ½ bag burada 100/-, paint material 6155/-  labour for white wash Rs. 2,000/- bill of sanitation of bathroom fitting Rs. 21,400/-, carpenter work Rs. 3000/-. As such he paid an amount of Rs. 64,841/- completion of work. The opposite parties have adopted the unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such, the complainant has prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to make payment of Rs. 1,02,841/-, which is spent by the complainant for completion of work, Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of physical strain and cost of proceedings.

2.                Upon notice, OP No. 2 appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. It is submitted that the complainant has made a contract with the opposite party for construction of new kitchen and to convert bathroom into store only (inclusive of labour and descent material only for ground floor). No other work as has been falsely alleged by the complainant was taken by the OP in the contract. The new construction work assigned to the opposite party and the whole deal was executed against payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- inclusive of labour and descent material only for ground floor. It is further submitted that the complainant forced the OP to do extra work and assured to the OP that he would pay the extra amount for extra work. On assurance, the OP executed finishing part of the already unfinished bathroom on the first floor and constructed one water closet (toilet seat) on the second floor.  It is submitted that the opposite party received in total of Rs. 96,000/- upto 26-03-2015 from the complainant and the work was executed upto 80 % by the opposite party as per original contract whereas the complainant had already done the construction work on the first and second floor from his own pocket of Rs. 12,000/- which the complainant denied to pay in toto to the OP. The pending 20% work included polishing of marble (ragrai was completed), final coat of paint, installing of handles of kitchen cabinets. The wiring work was got executed completely by the OP and switches were purchased and brought on the site by the OP but the fitting of switches was kept pending as the complainant refused to pay the pending amount of Rs. 29,000/- (1,25,000-96,000) as per the contract and Rs. 12,000/- of the extra work which the opposite party had already executed on assurance of the complainant on the first and second floor. It is further submitted that since the complainant had to pay the pending amount of Rs. 41,000/- (12000+29000) to OP for the work but the complainant turned his eyes. Rest of the averments made by the complainant are denied.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit of as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit as Annexure RX in the evidence of the OP and closed the same. 

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.  From the above arguments, the following one moot question has arisen for consideration before us are:-

a)       Whether the present complaint is maintainable in the present form or not?

                   The case of the complainant is that the complainant had given renovation work on contract basis to the OPs for the renovation of ground floor of his house as per the design prepared and finalized by the complainant including all the costs, like labour for reconstruction, demolition of old construction, removal of debris etc. The above said renovation job was to be completed at a total cost of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the job was to be completed by 10^th April 2015 and the amount was to be paid to him on the basis of work progress and the work for renovation. During the work, an amount of Rs. 1,18,000/- given to opposite parties but the job work is still pending from the level of finishing of marble and all white was work, partial job of kitchen, store and bathroom fittings and electrical wiring along with switches were incomplete. The complainant has spent an amount of Rs. 61,841/- against the balance work.

                   On the other hand contention of the opposite parties is that deal was executed against payment of Rs. 1,25,000/- inclusive of labour and descent material only for ground floor. It is further contented that on assurance of giving extra payment of extra work, the OP executed finishing part of the already unfinished bathroom on the first floor and constructed one water closet (toilet seat) on the second floor and opposite party received in total of Rs. 96,000/- upto 26-03-2015 from the complainant and the work was executed upto 80 % by the opposite party as per original contract and the rest work was kept pending as the complainant refused to pay the pending amount of Rs. 29,000/- (1,25,000-96,000) as per the contract and Rs. 12,000/- of the extra work which the opposite party had already executed on assurance of the complainant.           

5.                In view of the above said facts and arguments advanced by both parties, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is regarding the payment against each other. So we are in view that it is not a consumer dispute and such kind of disputes can be decided by the Civil Court. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and same is hereby, dismissed. However, the complainant shall have liberty to seek his grievance before the proper Forum or Civil Court, as per law.  Complainant can seek help for condonation of delay in accordance with law laid down in Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in SCC 1995(3) Pg. 583. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED ON: 30.06.2017                                     Sd/-

                                                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                     PRESIDENT        

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER