Delhi

East Delhi

CC/378/2014

AMAR NATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MOHMMAD SABIR - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2017

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         378 /2014

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  17/04/2014

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 22/05/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                           2-/05/2017  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Amar Nath, adult   

S/0- Late Rajendra Mandal

Office- Ch No.- F 627, Advocate Block, 

Karkarduma Court Complex, Shahdara, Delhi 110032  ……..……...Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

 

Mohd Sabir

S/o  Sh Fursat Ali    

HN – F 2/13, School Road, Khanpur, Delhi 110062

 

Also-

C/o- Anil Sharma,

C-158, 3^rd Floor, Pandav Nagar 

Delhi 110092………………………………………………………….…………………….Opponents

 

 

Quorum                                             Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                            Dr P N Tiwari               Member

                                                            Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                   

                                                                                 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                   

Complainant, Mr Amar Nath, advocate by profession engaged OP/ Mr Mohd Sabir, wooden work fabricator (carpenter) through a civil contractor Mr Anil Sharma for doing wooden work at his flat at G1, Module 11, Mangalam Homezs, Abhay Khand, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad on 12/02/2013. Complainant had an agreement done with OP for complete wooden work at the rate of Rs 175/sq feet charges for doing his work.

Total work had to be finished in sum of Rs 27,707/- and as advanced money, complainant paid Rs 21,000/-. The work had to be completed by 25/05/2013 as complainant had made his plan to shift by 01/06/2013.

Complainant had brought all the required material of his choice. After some time, complainant visited his house to see the work done, but got shocked to see that some untrained workers were employed by the OP and had removed windows and other parts of the fixtures. He immediately contacted Op, but was not available and did not come to his house to see or talk to him, so he met him and demanded his money paid to him which was neither refunded nor agreed work was done.

Complainant engaged another carpenter who did his work and for this, he incurred further loss of Rs 30,000/-. In addition to this, complainant stated that he incurred loss of 40,000/- in material which he brought himself. Complainant has sent several legal notices through email, but none were replied as annexed here as Ex CW1/1 to 8. So, he filed this complaint and claimed for Rs 1,55,000/- as material waste with Rs 50,000/- as compensation for harassment. He also claimed Rs 20,000/- as litigation charges.  

 

After scrutinizing complaint and evidences, notices were served, but OP neither appeared nor submitted his written statement. Ample opportunities were given, but OP failed to honor the notice of this Forum, so the case preceded ex-parte. Complainant submitted his ex-parte evidence on affidavit where he affirmed on oath that all the facts and evidence were correct and true. The evidences were on record and not controverted. 

 

Arguments were heard from the complainant as OP did not appear for the date of arguments despite serving notice, so order was reserved. 

We have gone through all the facts and evidence of case. It was evident that there was no agreement on record to sustain his version of terms and condition with OP for his labour charges and there was no evidence of receipt of amount Rs 21,000/- paid to the OP also and no evidence of another carpenter who inspected left out or wrong wooden work done by OP and complainant had paid amount to another carpenter for completion of his wooden work.

All the annexed so called evidences were rough piece of papers from some material shop, but cannot be said to be original bills.

Complainant was a practicing advocate so he had kept some authentic evidence to prove the deficiency of OP if required so, but none of the concrete evidence was on record.

 

We are of the opinion that this complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed so dismissed without cost.  

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

(Dr) P N Tiwari, Member                                                                      Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         

                                                

                                            Shri Sukhdev Singh  President