| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 136 of 18.4.2019 Decided on: 17.1.2023 Hari Saran Singh, aged 58 years S/o Harbans Singh R/o Kothi No.58, Gulab Nagar, Ward no.19, Post Office, Rajpura Town, Rajpura, District, Patiala (Punjab …………...Complainant Versus Manish Kumar C/o R.K.Furniture, Vashisht Nagar, Bebyal Road, Ambala Cantt. …………Opposite Party Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Hon’ble Mr. S.K.Aggarwal, President Hon’ble Mr. G.S.Nagi,Member PRESENT: Sh.Gaurav Bansal,counsel for complainant. Opposite party ex-parte. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Hari Saran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Manish Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
The averments of the complainant are as follows - That complainant availed the services of OP for getting the wood work done in his new constructed house but the wood work done by the OP is not upto mark as the doors were shortened from its wooden frame (chugath) to the extent of 2mm to 4mm.The complainant made complaint for the said fault to the OP but he did not pay any heed to his request/complaint even though the complainant paid whole labour charges after settling the account of OP on 22.4.2017 and also issued one cheque in favour of OP subject to the condition that OP will remove all the defects in doors and windows and thereafter OP will present the cheque for encashment but the OP presented the cheque with malafide intention, which was dishonoured on the instructions of the complainant to the bank to stop the payment. The OP on dishonouring of cheque issued legal notice upon the complainant which was duly replied. Thereafter meeting was held between the complainant and OP whereby OP agreed to remove the defects in the wooden work done by him within 15 days but the OP failed to do so. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.On 6.4.2019, complainant got inspected his house from the approved draughtsman Sh.Vikash Kumar & Associate, Rajpura, who thoroughly inspected the doors and windows, clicked the photographs and prepared a detailed report. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for acceptance of the complaint.
- Notice was sent to the OP through registered post, which was received back for want of correct address. On the request of the complainant notice was issued to the OP through publication in Punjab Kesri dated 7.11.2020 but the OP did not appear and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.12.2020.
- In the ex-parte evidence, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CA alongwith documents i.e. copy of detail of payment, Ex.C1, copy of legal notice,Ex.C2, copy of reply to legal notice,Ex.C3, photographs,Exs.C4 to C18, report of expert,Ex.C19,copy of postal receipt,Ex.C20.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The perusal of the record indicates that the complainant had engaged the OP for carrying out the wood work in his newly constructed residential premises. The wood work was started on 25.6.2016. The complainant has alleged that due to poor workmanship by the OP, the doors, windows and almirahs erected by the OP were of poor standard as there were gaps in the doors and windows and their frames (chaugats) erected by the OP. Complaints were made to the OP by the complainant. However, no corrective action was taken by the OP. Further on the assurance of the OP that the complaints will be attended, the accounts were settled by the complainant with the OP on 22.4.2017(Ex.C1). Even then the OP did not keep his words and without rectifying the defects in the wood work, deposited the cheque for clearance, which could not be encashed as Stop Payment Instructions had been issued by the complainant to the bank.
- The complainant has also produced on record report,Ex.C19 of an expert M/s Vikas Kumar & Associate, approved draughtsman and various photographs,Exs.C4 to C18 are attached with this report, from where it can be clearly seen that there were gaps in the doors and windows and their frams (chaugaths) . This shows clear cut poor workmanship done by the OP and also amounts to deficiency in service on his part in providing good finish to the newly erected doors and windows of the house of the complainant. Further more the allegations and the evidence lead by the complainant remained un-rebutted as the OP failed to appear and contest the case of the complainant.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.3000/-as costs of the complaint, to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
- However, it is made clear that this order/judgment will not prejudice the merits of the case filed by the OP against the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Act.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
-
-
G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
