Haryana

Karnal

46/2014

Ramesh Kumar S/o Om Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manjit Singh S/o Krishan Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rakesh Bangia

06 Sep 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                              Complaint No. 46 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.18.02.2014

                                                               Date of decision: 06.09.2016

 

Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash resident of village Budha Khera, near O.P.S. International School, Pritampaura Colony, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Mankit Singh son of Krishan Lal resident of village Phoosgarh, District Karnal.

2. Harbhajan son of Shri Haria resident of village Dalianpura, District Karnal.

 

                                                                           ..…… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Rakesh Bangia Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. J.C.Chauhan Advocate for the Opposite party no.2

                    Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he purchased plot measuring 133 sq.feet at village Budhakhera, District Karnal in January, 2013. He started constructing his house over the said land in the month of May,2013. Since there was no arrangement of piped water in the area, he wanted to install a submersible water pump for drinking water as well as for construction work. He contacted opposite parties for installation of the submersible water pump in his plot. Opposite parties started installing submersible water pump and finished the work. An amount of Rs.13075/- was spent for installation of the water pump. However, the submersible water pump did not work properly as the same was not installed perfectly by the opposite parties and sand alongwith water used to come out due to which the water pump used to stop functioning after ½ hour. He approached opposite parties and told about the said defect. Opposite party no.2, who was mason, tried to rectify the defect twice and charged Rs.600/- each time, but the defect persisted. He had to obtain water supply from Shri Pardeep Chhabra and paid an amount of Rs.6000/- to him for that purpose. He moved application against the opposite parties to Superintendent of Police Karnal, where they admitted their fault and agreed to repair the pump, but lateron refused to do so. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service due to which he suffered mental pain, agony and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. None put into appearance on behalf of opposite party no.1 despite service, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him, vide order dated 6.8.2014.

3.                Opposite party no.2 put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable against the opposite party no.2; that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that opposite party no.2 installed the water pump perfectly and received the labour charges from the complainant. No relief has been sought by the complainant against the opposite party no.2, therefore, the complaint against him deserves dismissal. The complainant even moved application to the Station House Officer Police Station Karnal against opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 had no concern with the complainant and the opposite party no.1. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have  been denied.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1, affidavit of Pardeep Chhabra Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to C5 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.2 his affidavit Ex.OP2W/A has been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                The complainant got installed one submersible water pump from opposite parties. As per the allegations of the complainant the said submersible pump did not function properly and he had to get supply of water for constructing his house from neighbourer Pardeep Chhabra. Opposite party no.2 has submitted that he installed the submersible water pump properly and got the labour charges.

8.                Thus, there is no dispute between the parties that the submersible water pump in the plot of the complainant was installed by opposite parties. Opposite party no.2 only charged the labour charges for installing the pump. The complainant has alleged that the said submersible water pump did not function properly and his plea finds support from his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Pardeep Chhabra Ex.CW2/A. However, the copy of the settlement between the complainant and the opposite party no.1 before the Police Ex.C4 indicates that the complainant had moved application against opposite party no.1 only and the matter was settled between the parties to the effect that the opposite party no.1 would get installed the submersible water pump again, but the material would be supplied by the complainant. No complaint was ever filed by the complainant against the opposite party no.2. The affidavit of opposite party no.2 is also specific that he and one Shoken were engaged by opposite party no.1 for labour work for installing submersible water pump of the complainant and they worked as per direction of opposite party no.1 and installed submersible water pump on 20.8.2013.   From his affidavit and pleadings, it is emphatically clear that he worked as labourer only, whereas opposite party no.1 was the contractor. The contents of his affidavit in this regard have gone completely unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. As the contract was between the complainant and the opposite party no.1, the complainant was not consumer of opposite party no.2 and he had not hired the services of opposite party no.2, rather the payment of the labour charges was made through the contractor i.e. opposite party no.1.

9.                From the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, it is established that the submersible water pump of the complainant is not working properly. Therefore, we have no hesitation in observing that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1, who obtained contract for installation of submersible tubewell pump. Consequently, the opposite party no.1 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to install the submersible water pump in the plot of the complainant as per compromise before the Police Ex.C4 and if it is not possible, then make payment of the charges of Rs.9,925/- charged by him for installation of the tubewell alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization to the complainant. We further direct the opposite party no.1 to  pay Rs.2200/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.09.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member