Satish Kumar Sharma filed a consumer case on 06 Feb 2019 against M/S Oak Super Block Industries in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/65 and the judgment uploaded on 15 Feb 2019.
THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 65 of 06.08.2018
Date of decision : 06.02.2019
Satish Kumar Sharma, aged about 54 years, son of Sh. Ram Asra, resident of Village Bainspur, PO Sukhsal, Tehsil Nangal, District Ropar.
......Complainant
Versus
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. V.K. Soni, Adv. counsel for complainant
Sh. Anuj Thakur, Adv. counsel for Ops
ORDER
SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered original photographs Ex.C1 to Ex.C3, copy of mail conversation between the complainant and OP2 vide Ex.C4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.Ps. tendred copy of Registration Certificate Ex.OP1, Original Certificate of Base Development Section of Pavers Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6. Complainant counsel Sh. V.K. Soni, had argued that in the month of July, 2016, complainant visited the O.Ps. to get installed the cement pavers outside area of his newly built residential house at the given address, which is about 1500 Sq. Ft. For this purpose complainant approached the O.ps. and it was settled between the complainant O.P. No.2, who visited the spot that the total expenses would be Rs.1,10,000/- in lum sum with the division of Rs.75,000/- towards brick pavers and Rs.35,000/- towards labour for laying of concrete base/raw materials etc. As per the settlement, O.P. No.2 in his supervision started the work by charging Rs.1,10,000/-. When the complainant returned from Australia in the last week of June 2018, he saw the malba material was stocked on the brick pavers and when his driver drove the tractor/trolley loaded with the malba towards main gate then pavers got depressed 2 to 4 inches at different places. Complainant informed these facts to the O.Ps. through mail. O.Ps. initially denied then agreed for fresh paving with the rider that the charges/expenses whatsoever occurred would be shared equally but this proposal of the O.Ps. was declined by the complainant. Learned counsel of the complainant by referring to the documentary evidence, argued that deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands established. O.P. No.2 did the labour of fixation of pavers work under his supervision not to the satisfaction of the complainant/as per the oral settlement and the deficiency admitted through Ex.C4. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.
7. Sh. Anuj Thakur, Advocate, appeared for the O.Ps., contested the complaint by tendering evidence by way of affidavit and the learned counsel argued that O.P. No.1 only supplied the material i.e. brick pavers of the price of Rs.75,000/-. Whereas, the labour charges are paid to one Vinod Kumar, who is not impleaded as party in this complaint. The complaint is bad for non impleading the necessary parties i.e. Vinod Kumar. He also argued that O.P. No.2 was unnecessarily dragged in this litigation as O.P. No.2 i.e Aman Gupta has facilitated the complainant's work by further engaging one Vinod Kumar. Complainant made the payment of Rs.35,000/- as labour charges that was further entrusted to Vinod Kumar and lastly prayed that no deficiency has been proved by the complainant on the file, moreso, out of the way O.Ps. had agreed for the repair by bearing 50% expenses but this proposal was declined by the complainant. Lastly prayed that complaint is without merit and same be dismissed.
8. Complainant is resident of District Ropar, Tehsil Nangal, O.Ps. are also of the same district. Complainant approached the O.Ps. for brickpaving and paid Rs.1,10,000/-. O.Ps. in reply admitted the payment and admitted the work done. Though, qua the work there is no document on the file but oral assertions are admitted by the O.Ps. made by the complainant. Further O.Ps. admitted for repair bearing 50% expenses. In this way, it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and this forum has territorial jurisdiction.
9. Coming to the deficiency part, whether the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. As discussed in earlier part of the order, complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- to the O.Ps and O.Ps. supplied the brick pavers for Rs.75,000/- and then received payment of Rs.35,000/- towards labour expenses. So, O.Ps. admitted the receipt of Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant.
10. O.Ps. pleaded in the reply as well in arguments that one Vinod Kumar did work to the satisfaction of the complainant to whom paid Rs.35,000/- but the main conversation is silent qua the name of Vinod Kumar. Moreso, the complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to O.P. No.2, (Aman Gupta) and no evidence has come on file by either of the O.Ps. regarding payment of Rs.35,000/- to Vinod Kumar, whether it was Rs.35,000/- or more than or less than Rs.35,000/-. So no benefit can be extended to the O.Ps. on the ground of non impleading Vinod Kumar. arguments on this issue is without merit. The Complainant has placed on file photographs of the brick paving Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. Even photographs are not denied by the OPs. counsel as well as the proprietor of O.P. No.1. From the close scrutiny of the photographs the deep wedges between the brick pavers are visible. Further some pavers are full of sand and some are broken too. The material documents, which is placed on file by complainant is Ex.C4 (mail conversation) and this document is not denied by the O.Ps. Complainant from time to time informed the OPs. and pointed out deficiency. From the email conversation it is seen that initially the OPs. denied but lateron at page No.2 of Ex.C4, Aman Pavers O.P. No.2 has given the consent which is as follows:
Aman Pavers: “Sir the repair will be paid we can share 50% the only base is not the reason for pavers to settle. Base was laid only a layer of gatka how can one assure what is below the gatka and who laid it how laid it how much compacted what were the specifications followed. Please confirm we can share 50% as a gesture after two years".
"Aman Pavers: if you confirm I will send a person to check and share estimate subject to availability of labor we will share date of repair"
In reply to the above said request, complainant denied by way of following conversation.
"Why should I had to hire another agency and labour to know specifications & laying of gatka etc. I don't need any gesture, it is matter of business deal/professional ethics. No, I will not spend even a penny on it until unless law agency would find fault with me or the place of Pavers installation and order me to pay. And you just see the amount I had paid for it. You never said, life of work was two years".
11. This forum has closely securitized pleadings, reply/affidavit of O.Ps. and the star document Ex.C4. Its relevant portion has already been reproduced in earlier part of the order. The forum after discussion has come to the conclusion that deficiency on the part of O.Ps. stands fully established. O.Ps. sold the pavers of 1500 Sq.Ft along with cost of its paving including mason charges as well as the material and Rs.1,10,000/- received by the O.P. No.2 from the complainant. When such a huge amount has already been received and the area is only of 1500 Sq.Ft then why the complainant has to bear again 50% of the expenses either for its repair or for fixation for fresh pavers. So complaint is having a merit, whereas O.Ps. remain unable in satisfying the forum.
12. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the OPs. that OPs shall refix the brick pavers by the relaying concrete/base, reuse the unbroken pavers and replace the broken pavers to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The entire expenses shall be borne by the O.Ps, failing which the complainant is entitled Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum from July, 2016 with cost of Rs.25,000/-.
13. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)
Dated.21.12.2018 PRESIDENT
(CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.