Quorum: Smt. D.K. Khosa, Member.<br /> Dr. H.L. Mittal Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh. A.K. Gill counsel for the complainant.<br /> Sh. S.K. Mittal counsel for the opposite party.<br /> ORDER<br /> Bhupinder Kaur complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite party to pay Rs. 52,921/- due to deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony, pain, unnecessary harassment, negligence and carelessness.<br /> 2. The complainant averred in her complaint that she is owner in possession of 0.7 Marlas bounded as on East : Nima Singh, West: Karnail Singh, North: Nidhan Singh, South: Street at Rassal Patti, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu vide registered sale deed dated 14.5.2005. This plot was some kacha covered area and some was constructed with bricks and cement. The complainant arranged a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from The Faridkot Central Coop. Branch Jaitu for the construction of the home. The complainant applied to Nagal Council, Jaitu for the approval for construction of home and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,836/- as fee and map was approved vide letter No. 1151 dated 13.10.2005. In the month of November 2005 the complainant made an agreement with the opposite party to construct the house as per site plan. The opposite party constructed the home up to the roof and then the complainant asked him to make lenttar as roof but in the absence of the complainant the opposite party laid the dotts as roof. In the evening when the complainant came to the home she asked the opposite party as to why he did so ignoring the instructions of the complainant then the opposite party told that whens the dotts will be opened then it will became well and good. After some days when the dotts was opened there were beams which were not supported by any wall and there are some scratches in the dotts. When the opposite party was called he said to put sand on the dotts but the complainant enquired that it will also put burden upon the dotts. The opposite party asked to do so and when some sand was put on the dotts then some bricks were fell down. The complainant called Panchayat in this regard but no compromise was effected. The complainant reported the matter to P.S. Jaitu but the matter was not solved. Then complainant called S. Pritam Singh, Retd. S.D.O. PWD, I.B., Ferozepur Road, Faridkot to visit the spot to give his technical report for the loss caused by the opposite party who visited the spot on 11.2.2006 and prepared a site plan and technical report which is signed by him. The complainant suffered harassment, mental torture, mental agony and also lost prestige amongst the locality which cannot be compensated by way of money. S. Pritam Singh Retd. S.D.O. Observed that the opposite party failed in his professional service and responsible for loss of owner and there remains no alternative except to demolish the roofing structure and laying of R.B. Cement concrete slab again at the cost of opposite party under supervision of Civil Engineer. He assessed the loss in all to the tune of Rs. 52,951/-. So the complainant is entitled for the amount of Rs.52,951/-. She is also entitled for an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- for mental tension, agony, pain, unnecessary harassment, negligence and carelessness. Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. The counsel for the complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 26.7.2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.<br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite party appeared through Sh. S.K. Mittal Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objection that the opposite party has worked as a Mason for the construction of the building of the complainant at the rate of Rs.27/- per Sq. feet and when the construction work of the building was at its completion stage, the complainant made a false complaint only usurp the amount of labour of the opposite party which comes to Rs.6500/-. On merits the opposite party submitted that there was contract with the opposite party by the complainant to charge Rs.27/- per Sq. feet as his labour charges. The complainant had instructed the opposite party to build the house on dots. It is wrong that the opposite party was asked by the complainant to build the house as of lanter. There is much difference between the lanter and dot and their material to raise the construction is altogether different. How a mason like the opposite party can convert a roof of lanter into dot as the material for the same is quite different and the material meant for lanter is most costly. The construction was done by the opposite party according to the wishes and desire of the complainant. The complainant asked the opposite party to build the roof of dot and the same was done. The complainant has only taken the plea to usurp the amount of labour of the opposite party which she has not paid so far and wants to harass the opposite party. The dot at the spot is quite well and can bear any weight. No brick was fallen out of it. The complainant knowingly and intentionally has broken one brick which is still fitted in the dot and the dot is still intact and can be inspected by any expert. The building was shown to Mann Singh son of Sher Singh and Sadhu Singh son of Chuhar Singh who are experts in making the roof dot and there is no fault in the roof of the dot. The police asked the Municipal Commissioner, Jaitu to inspect the spot and decide. Then M.C. Rakesh Kumar and Jaspal Singh inspected the disputed roof and found the same to be OK. The report of Pritam Singh Retd. S.D.O is false and contrary to the real facts. The dots are still standing at the site and have full force and strength to bear any load. Hence the complaint be dismissed with special costs.<br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of sale deed Ex.C-2, photocopy of site plan Ex.C-3, affidavit of Balraj Singh Ex.C-4, affidavit of Pritam Singh Retd. S.D.O. PWD Irrigation Branch, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot Ex.C-5, photocopy of report of Pritam Singh Retd. S.D.O. Ex.C-6, photocopy of bill of Saria Ex.C-7, photocopy of bills of cement Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-10, photocopy of bills of Bajri Ex.C-11 to Ex.C-13 and closed her evidence.<br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence report of Jeet Singh Brar Retired Assistant Municipal Engineer from Municipal Committee, Malerkotla District Sangrur Ex.R-1, site plan Ex.R-2, affidavit of Mistri Pritam Singh opposite party Ex.RW-3 and closed his evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the opposite party Mistri Pritam Singh intentionally have changed structure of the roof of the house of the complainant from R.C.C. Lanter to brick dot lining (Archies). The bricks from the roof of one room had fallen due to bad workmanship. Complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.52,951/-. Complainant is entitled to Rs.40,000/- on account of mental tension, pain, agony, unnecessarily harassment caused by the opposite party to the complainant.<br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the complainant herself have purchased material to construct dot with the help of bricks (Archies). There was no contract between the parties with regard to laying of R.C.C slab on the roof of the house of the complainant. The R.C.C slab requires much and more quantity of cement, concrete and Iron rodes. The complainant has filed this false complaint just to usurp the amount of the labour of the opposite party which comes to Rs.6500/-.<br /> 10. From the perusal of the statement of the complainant it is made out that she had herself purchased iron rodes, bricks, cement for construction of her house. She had been checking in the evening all the construction work. After laying beams no Saria rodes were surplus, total cement was used in these beams and bazri was also consumed.<br /> 11. Bhupinder Kaur complainant has testified in her cross examination that there are wholes in all the six rooms. In first room, second room from east of the roof has fallen 3x2 Sq. feet. Now walls are falling so roof will automatically fall. She does not know as to why the walls are falling.<br /> 12. Pritam Singh building expert examined by the complainant in his cross examination has admitted that he has not mentioned developing of the cracks in his report. He has given only about two wholes report in the photographs but these photographs are not on the file. The opposite party has placed saria at the correct place. In the lintered roof the consumption of steel one and half times more than the dot roof. Even cement consumption is also more by one and half times than that of the dot roof. All the walls were standing in good condition.<br /> 13. Complainant has not averred with regard to wholes in all the rooms. She has averred that when the sand was put on the dot then some bricks fell down. She has not made mention with regard to developing of the cracks in the walls.<br /> 14. Jeet Singh Brar in his report Ex.R-1 and statement made in the Forum makes out that he has submitted his report after visiting the spot. In his cross examination he has not supported the case of the complainant. In his report he made specific mention that from the side of main road in shop No. 1 the complainant had tried to make a whole due to which certain bricks were broken. It was done just to damage part of the house of the complainant. In case there would have been any technical deficiency or bad workmanship then the entire dot mist have fallen down. There was no crack in the roof. After inspection of the spot he observed that correct material has been used to lay Arch/dotted roof. The complainant was required to provide material for construction of the roof with the material supplied by the complainant to the opposite party the dotted roof have only constructed. In case the complainant wanted to construct roof Iron rodes, cement, sand etc. was required to be supplied in much and more quantity. The complainant have completed plaster of the backside room. She had made it fit for living. She has not put earth on the roof of other constructed house. It is lying in the same condition since about 9-10 months.<br /> 15. From the perusal of the version of the opposite party and evidence of the witnesses examined by the opposite party it is made out that the complainant just to usurp labour amount of Rs.6500/- pertaining to deponent have filed this complaint. Matter of construction of the roof of such an area is not the work to be completed within a day or two. It takes so many days. Complainant had been inspecting the spot. She had supplied material to the opposite party. She has not raised any objection with the opposite party at the time of construction of the roof if it was required to be R.C.C instead of dots/Arch. The dispute in between the parties is not with regard to bad workmanship. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party to be provided to the complainant.<br /> 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. However there is no order as to costs due to peculiar circumstances of the case. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 19.12.2007<br />