Haryana

Panchkula

CC/216/2022

RAVINDER SINGLA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GUPTA WATER PROOFING & TREATMENT. - Opp.Party(s)

SURAJ SINGLA

11 Sep 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

                                               

Consumer Complaint No	:	216 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	13.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	11.09.2023

 

 

Ravinder Singla, son of Late of Sh.Duni Chand r/o House No.280, Sector-4, Panchkula.

    ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

M/s Gupta Water Proofing & Treatment through its proprietor Sh. Ram Ashish Gupta s/o Sh. Shankar Prasad Gupta r/o House No.305, Abheypur, Panchkula.

Corresponding address: House No.18, Near Shiv Temple, Village Coat, Panchkula.

                                                                       ……Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                         Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                         Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Suraj Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

                         Sh. Nischal Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP(Defence struck                     off vide order dated 14.11.2022.

                                 

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant was facing the problem of dampness and leakage of water on the wall of basement of his booth/shop no.122, New Vegetable Market, Sector-20, Panchkula; the OP was contacted to resolve the issue of dampness and leakage on wall of the basement of the said booth, who had agreed to carry out the necessary work on the payment of Rs.47,000/- by the complainant to him. The OP had assured that there would arise no problem after the completion of necessary repair work done by him and, in case, if any, issue arises within a period of 5 years, in that event, he would be liable to carry out the necessary repair, free of cost. The work was finished by the OP and the agreed amount was paid to him. Warranty of 5 years was given by OP vide receipt no.413 dated 23.05.2021. The OP had also given an affidavit dated 25.05.2021 to the complainant mentioning therein the warranty of 5 years. It is alleged that the complainant, in the month of July, 2021, when he entered the basement of said booth, he found the water leakage as well as dampness on the wall. Upon this, the OP was asked to look into the problem, which had arisen again, but no heed was paid by the OP. A legal notice was sent by the complainant to OP on 03.03.2022 asking him to resolve the issue but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of OPs, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Sh.Ram Parkash Ashish Gupta, Proprietor/Authorised representative appeared on behalf of the OP on 29.09.2022 and had sought some time for filing the written statement and case was adjourned to 28.10.2022. On 28.10.2022, written statement was not filed on behalf of the OP and case was adjourned to 14.11.2022. On 14.11.2022, none had appeared on behalf of the OP and its defence was ordered to be struck off. Thereafter, Sh.Nishcal Bhardwaj, Advocate has appeared and filed power of attorney as well as written arguments on behalf of the OP, wherein it is averred that the OP had performed his work without any complaint and had also shown the proof to the complainant by filing up the water inside the gap and there was no seepage in the wall which was water proofed by OP. It is submitted that the basement was inspected by OP, wherein water proofing was found in order. The dampness in the wall had occurred due to the leakage in the sewerage line. The complainant was requested to get repaired the said leakage in the sewerage line but the same was not got done by him(the complainant). It is submitted no expert report has been placed on record by the complainant to show that there was any error or defect in the water proofing work done by the OP and thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has tendered the photographs of dampness in the basement, which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’  ‘B’ & ‘C’ for the adjudication of the controversy in a proper and fair manner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP and gone through the entire record available on file including the written arguments filed by OP, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) of the complainant and contended that a warranty of 5 years was given by the OP qua the water proofing job done by him in the basement of booth/shop no.122, New Vegetable Market, Sector-20, Panchkula. It is contended that the dampness and water leakage had occurred within a very short period after the completion of work by the OP in the basement and thus, the work done by the OP was of inferior and sub-standard quality. It is contended that the OP did not resolve the issue of dampness and water leakage despite the guarantee/warranty of 5 years given by him vide bill/memo(Annexure C-1) and affidavit (Annexure C-2) and thus, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.   

6.On the other hand, the OP has failed to file the written statement/reply, despite having taken sufficient time and resultantly, its defence was struck off vide our order dated 14.11.2022 and thus, there is no rebuttal to the contentions of the complainant.

                The learned counsel on behalf of the OP contended that no expert report has been placed on record by the complainant in support of his contentions and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel further contended that the water proofing job in the basement of the complainant was completed with complete perfection by OP and there was no error or defect in the work done by him(the OP). It is contended that the dampness/water leakage in the basement had occurred on account of water leakage in the sewerage line; hence, no liability can be attributed on the part of OP. Concluding  the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

7.Evidently, a guarantee of 5 years was given by OP vide bill (Annexure C-1) as well as his affidavit(Annexure C-2) qua any occurrence  of leakage in the basement. The OP has not disputed the fact that the problem of dampness and water leakage had occurred in the basement within guarantee period after the completion of the work. Rather, it has been alleged that the leakage/dampness had occurred due to some water leakage in the sewerage line. Pertinently, no documentary evidence has been placed on record on behalf of OP in support of his contentions and in order to rebut or controvert the contentions of the complainant, wherein deficiency on the part of OP has been alleged. The contentions of the complainant go uncontroverted and unrebutted against OP as its defence was struck off on 14.11.2022. Moreover, the complainant has strengthened his version qua dampness in the basement by placing on record as Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’.

8.In view of the factual discussion made above, no merits are found in the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP that no expert report was placed on record by the complainant in support of his contentions. Therefore, the deficiency on the part of the OP is writ large and accordingly, is held liable to compensate the complainant.

9.In relief, it has been found that the complainant has got carried out the necessary work in the basement by paying a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. In this regard, receipt(Annexure C-4) has been placed on record. However, the OP had received only a sum of Rs.47,000/- from the complainant qua the completion of work pertaining to removal of dampness in the basement of booth/shop in question; thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs.47,000/-. In addition to above, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rs.1,00,000+1,00,000) has been claimed as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.33,000/- has been claimed as litigation charges.

10.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To refund a sum of Rs.47,000/- to the complainant.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant  on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant  on account of litigation charges.

 

 10.  The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the amount of Rs.47,000/- shall carry an interest @9%(s.i.) per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The complainant shall also be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 11.09.2023

 

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

 

CC.216 of 2022

Present:             Sh. Suraj Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Nischal Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP(Defence struck                     off vide order dated 14.11.2022).

 

                       During the course of arguments, the complainant has tendered the photographs of dampness in the basement, which are taken on record as Mark ‘A’  ‘B’ & ‘C’ for the adjudication of the controversy.  Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 11.09.2023 for orders.

Dt.04.09.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Sh. Suraj Singla, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Nischal Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP(Defence struck                     off vide order dated 14.11.2022.

 

                         

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OP with costs.

                         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 11.09.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President