Complaint No: 107 of 2020.
Date of Institution: 19.10.2020.
Date of order: 10.10.2023.
Steba Masih aged 55 years son of Jana Masih, resident of village Sunayia, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
…...Complainant.
VERSUS
Kulbir Singh Son of Kulwant Singh, resident of Mullian Khurd, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.
….Opposite party.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
Opposite party: Exparte.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Steba Masih, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Kulbir Singh (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party is a contractor and constructs houses. It is submitted that the complainant hired the opposite party in June 2020 for the construction of his house and rate was settled between him and the opposite party @ Rs.120/- per square feet and total area was 943 feets. It is alleged that the opposite party had received Rs.95,000/- in advance from the complainant but stopped construction incomplete. It is further pleaded that the complainant requested the opposite party so many times to complete construction of his house as agreed between the complainant and the opposite party, but the opposite party paid no heed to his requests. It is further alleged that after making so many requests to the opposite party, but he refused to complete the construction of his house. It is further pleaded that as such the complainant hired new contractor and had to pay him again for construction and paid Rs.70,000/- to him. It is further pleaded that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is further pleaded that the opposite party had committed breach of trust and harassed the complainant intentionally and willfully. It is further pleaded that complainant and his family also suffered mental and physical pain and agony because of illegal act and conduct of the opposite party and as such the complainant is entitled to claim damages / compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. It is further alleged that the complainant had to pay twice for construction of his house. It is further pleaded that complainant had also served a legal notice dated 10.6.2020 upon the opposite party in this regard, but even that the opposite party did not make the payment of amount in dispute and put the matter from one pretext to the other. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite party the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.2,95,000/- alongwith Rs.82,962/- for mental and Rs.70,000/- alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest, to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Opposite party did not appear despite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order date 14.07.2021.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Steba Masih, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18.
5. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
6. Written arguments not filed by the complainant.
7. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had hired the services of opposite party for construction of his house in the year 2020 at the rate i.e. Rs.120/- per square feet with total area of under construction 943 feets. It is further argued that opposite party received Rs.95,000/- in advance from the complainant but thereafter stopped construction. It is further argued that opposite party had to hire services of other labour for completion of construction and as such there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
8. Opposite party remained exparte vide order dated 14.07.2021.
9. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW-1A, copy of legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, bills regarding purchasing of material Ex.C3 to Ex.C8. Photographs of under construction building Ex.C9 to Ex.C18. We have perused all the documents on record but the plea of the complainant that he had paid Rs.95,000/- to the opposite party but the complainant has not produced on record or any receipt having been signed by the opposite party to prove the payment to the opposite party and merely placing some bills regarding purchase of material no where proved that the payment to the opposite party was made by the complainant for construction of house.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as the relation of consumer and service provider does not exist and has not been established on record. As such complaint is being devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Oct. 10, 2023 Member
*YP*
