Delhi

East Delhi

CC/59/2018

P.P. SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT of Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092  

 

                                                                                                   Consumer complaint no.          59/2018

                                                                                                   Date of Institution                09/03/2018

                                                                                                   Order reserved on                01/10/2019       

                                                                                                   Date of Order                        04/10/2019                                                                                    

 

In matter of

Mr. P P Singh

R/o 61 Shyam Enclave

Vikas Marg Delhi 110092.....................................…………….Complainant

                             

                                      Vs

 

Mr Jai Singh   

H.O. 1/3991 Bhagwanpur Khera

Loni Road Shahdara Delhi-110032.……..……………..….………..Opponent

 

Complainant Advocate                 Mr. K. P. Singh

Opponent Advocate                      Mr. Ram Veer Singh                

 

Quorum                                           Sh Sukhdev  Singh        President

                                                          Dr P N Tiwari                 Member

                                                          Mrs Harpreet Kaur       Member                                                                                             

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member  

Brief Facts of the case                                                                        

This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency of OP in doing repairing work for seepage in his house (basement) and claimed on Quotation /Estimate amount given by OP.

  

Complainant engaged OP for getting repaired for water leakage in basement of his house with Kota stone laying in measuring about 1562 sq feet for a sum of Rs 1,70,000/-including material, labour charges and complete water proofing. It was stated that OP gave 20 years guarantee for his work in his agreement and work started from 25^th July 2015 and got completed on 21/10/2016 (Ex CW1/1 & 1A).    

The work got completed in time, but water leakage started in Oct.2016, so informed OP, but OP did not come for repair and demanded extra amount Rs 10,000/-for chemical quoting.  

Despite of calling repeatedly up to Dec. 2017, did not come for repairing, so sent legal notice for repairing water leakage as per agreement or refund the amount paid as Rs 1,70,000/-and  compensation for mental harassment Rs 50,000/-. When no reply was received, filed this complaint and claimed Rs 1,70,000/ with 18% interest per annum and Rs 2200/- for legal notice fee with Rs 10,000/- for deficiency in services.

 

In written statement OP denied all allegations of deficiency in their services as alleged by complainant. It was admitted that complainant was given Quotation for the amount as mentioned (Ex OPW1/1&1A) which was also submitted by the complainant. No invoice or bill was issued and never guarantee was given for any repair work. It was stated by OP that basement being adjacent to the sewage drain, seepage had to occur and doing complete work would require Rs 2,57,000/-, but complainant paid only Rs 2,20,000/-. Complainant did not pay the balance amount Rs 37,000/-. Even calling repeatedly complainant, no balance amount was made till date though received court notice. So, there was no deficiency on the part of OP rather complainant had not fulfilled oral agreement done. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

Complainant submitted rejoinder to written statement of OP and denied replies submitted by OP. He stated that facts of complaints were correct and true and all agreed amount was paid by the complainant despite of giving guarantee in writing. OP did not fulfill terms as agreed. Complainant submitted evidences through his own affidavit where he affirmed on oath that all the facts were correct and true and OP did fraud u/s 420 IPC so be held for culpable guilty. It was also stated that OP was liable to pay Rs 5 lacs as compensation for mental harassment.

 

OP submitted their evidence through his own affidavit and affirmed on oath that all procedures were done in time and as per the satisfaction of complainant despite did not pay balance amount Rs 37,000/-. It was also submitted that Quotation was given where amount was mentioned and admitted for payment received, but did not receive balance amount. So it was prayed for balance payment from complainant. OP also submitted written arguments and taken on record where it was stressed that work was done as per satisfaction of complainant and during completion of repair work, complainant never objected, but balance payment of Rs 37,000/- was not paid after completion of repair work in basement in Oct. 2016.

 

Arguments heard from both the parties. After perusal of materials on record, order was reserved.

We have examined  the facts and evidences of the parties, it was noted that OP had given a Quotation to the complainant for getting repair work in basement where seepage was present due to flowing of open sewer drainage and no written agreement between both the parties was on record.  Also complainant had neither put any evidence of fresh seepage in basement nor when work started or after completion of work by OP. Also there was no evidence of consideration done to OP through his bank pass book. It was also noted that OP had stated situation of seepage in basement due to adjacent open sewage drainage in his written statement which was not countered by complainant by any evidence. Also whatsoever amount/consideration was paid not supported by affidavit.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove deficiency in the work of OP by any concrete evidence during proceeding. So, this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed so dismissed without any order to cost.

The First free copy of this order be sent to the parties under Regulation 18(6) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under Regulation 20 (1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs  Harpreet Kaur  Member                                                                                                                         

                                      

                                                  Sukhdev Singh  President