Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/125/2014

Ram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

kulwinder singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Pc Joshi

04 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2014

                                                        Date of institution:  08/09/2014            

                                                     Date of decision   :  04.01.2016

1. Ram Singh,
2. Jagjit Singh, both sons of Sh. Dev Singh, residents of village Bagrian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainants

Versus

Kulwinder Singh son of Sh. Piara Singh, resident of village Bagrian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                                       Smt. Veena Chahal, Member,                                                           

Present :    Sh. P.C.Joshi, Adv.Cl. for the complainants.                                           Sh. P.S.Syan, Adv.Cl. for the OP.                                

ORDER

Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                  Complainants, Ram Singh and Jagjit Singh, both sons of Sh. Dev Singh, residents of village Bagrian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, have filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainants gave a contract to the OP, in the last week of February 2013, to construct their two residential houses situated at village Bagrian, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib at the rate of Rs.90/- per Sq.feet for the covered area including the construction of all kitchen slabs, all other slabs in rooms and stores, two stairs, all designs, plaster of walls and lentil, Jangla, Katcha floor on ground after putting Rori, two septic tanks and floor with tile bricks on roof and it had also been settled that the OP will receive the payment from the complainants as per his need to do the construction work. On 01.03.2013 the OP alongwith his labourers started the work of construction of two residential houses of the complainants and before starting the work, he took Rs. 2000/- from the complainants. Thereafter, the OP worked until the last week of May 2013 and during this period he did not complete the construction work and also not do the same with efficiency as he promised at the time of contract. Some slabs and one stair, which were constructed by the OP, fell down. The plaster of the walls was also not done in proper way and due to this reason, there are many cracks in the plaster of walls, for which the OP is fully responsible. The OP failed to perform his act as per the contract and as such, there is great deficiency in service on the part of the OP. During the said period the OP received an amount of Rs.2,30,320/- from the complainants and the transactions were entered in the diary maintained by the complainants. The complainants asked the OP to re-construct the slabs and stair, which had fell down, but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other and in the second week of May 2013, he totally failed to complete the work and also failed to reconstruct the slabs and stair. Instead of completing the construction work the OP filed a false complaint against the complainants in the Court of Labour Commissioner, Mandi Gobindgarh. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.2,30,320/- received by him and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages/compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants.

3.               In reply to the complaint the OP raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complainants have concealed true and material facts from this Forum; the complainants are stopped by their own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and the complainants have no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint. As per the facts of the complaint, the OP stated that no contract was executed between the parties regarding the said work. It is further stated that complainants did not provide quality and sufficient material to the OP for the purpose of construction of both the houses. The OP had completed all the construction work completely and properly and no construction work has been left incomplete. The OP is not responsible for any act rather the complainants are responsible for the same for not providing sufficient and quality material. The OP has performed his part of moral duty as there is no deficiency in service on his part. The OP has completed all the construction work but the complainants did not pay balance amount to the OP. The OP has filed a complaint before the Labour Commissioner, Mandi Gobindgarh against the complainants and due to the said reason the complainants filed the present complaint to pressurize the OP to withdraw the said complaint. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove the case, the complainants tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant No.2 as Ex. C-1, affidavit of Satwinder Singh, Plumber Ex. C-2, attested copy of diary Ex. C-3, photographs Ex. C-4 to C-14, attested copy of summon of Labour Court Ex. C-15, report of Local Commissioner Sh. Mandeep Singh Bains Ex. C-16, affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex. C-17 and affidavit of Gurwinder Singh Ex. C-18, attested copies of bills as Ex. C-19 & C-20 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. OP1/A, true copies of documents i.e. site plan Ex. OP-1, details of particular dated 27.03.2013 Ex. OP-2, bill dated 23.04.2013 Ex. OP-3, bill dated 26.04.2013 Ex. OP-4, record regarding payment Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.

5. The ld. counsel for the OP has at the very outset pointed out, that his preliminary objections on the point of maintainability of the present complaint be decided before deciding the same on merits. The ld. counsel stated that the present complaint cannot be adjudicated by this Forum as technical and complicated questions are involved in the present case, which can only be proved by adducing voluminous evidence. He further stated that all the witnesses of the complainant are to be cross-examined at length, as per the provisions of the Evidence Act. The ld. counsel submitted that the report of the Local Commissioner i.e Ex.C-16 cannot be accepted as no notice was served upon the OP for the inspection of the said premises and nor has the Local Commissioner mentioned the same in his report. He further submitted that the bills of the material placed on record are fabricated and the OP can only prove this fact while cross-examining the person who had issued the said bills.

6.               On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the complainants has submitted that there are no technical or complicated questions involved and the complainants have proved their case and there is no need of cross-examining of any witnesses. He stated that the OP had not performed the contract for construction of the two houses of the complainants. The ld. counsel further submitted that the complainants had supplied the construction material of good quality. The ld. counsel also stated that the present complaint deserves to be adjudicated upon merits.

7.                After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence produced by them and oral as well as written submissions, we are of the opinion that there are technical and complex questions are involved and in order to prove the same examination and cross examination of the witnesses are required at length. We find force in the submissions made by the ld.counsel for the OP. Thus we feel that the present case c annot be adjudicated on merits. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case of Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport,2015(3) CLT 415(PB) has observed that “where the matter cannot be adjudicated without recording elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses, the complainant be directed to approach competent civil court to seek redressal of her grievance”. We may further in this case refer to a decision of three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Synco Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC) , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “where complicated questions of law and facts are involved Forum under the Consumer Protection Act may not be a proper Forum to dispose of such a case in summary fashion”. We feel in the present case also there are complicated questions of facts are involved which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Form.

8.                Accordingly in view of our aforementioned discussion and the case law, in our view, we are of the opinion that in the present case also elaborate evidence involving cross-examination of witnesses is required for proper adjudication of the case. Thus we would not like to go into the merits of the case. Hence the present complaint is disposed of with liberty to the complainants to approach the appropriate Court of law and may be entitled to the benefit of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute II(1995) CPJ 1 (SC) for the purpose of exclusion of time spent before this Forum. All the original and requisite documents be returned to the parties. A copy of the same be retained. Parties to bear the cost.

9.               The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period as the parties requested many times for adjournment since there was scope for compromise, as per their version. The case was also fixed for compromise in Lok Adalat, but compromise could not be effected. Thus, there was delay in the disposal of the present complaint.

10.             Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 04.01.2016                                     (A.P.S.Rajput)   

                                                                    President

 

                                                                  (Veena Chahal)   

                                                                     Member