Punjab

Sangrur

CC/786/2015

Gurmail Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Punjab Marbles - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S. Dhindsa

17 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                    

                                                Complaint No.  786

                                                Instituted on:    06.08.2015

                                                Decided on:       17.06.2016

 

Gurmail Singh aged about 38 years son of Nachhattar Singh, resident of Ward No.7, Lehragaga, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

Punjab Marbles, Changaliwala, Tehsil Lehra, District Sangrur through its sole Proprietor Sohan Lal.

                                                        ..Opposite party

 

For the complainant  :       Shri S.S.Dhindsa, Adv.

For OP                     :         Shri Rajinder Goyal, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurmail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that in the month of January, 2015, the complainant purchased marbles and tiles from OP for his newly built house and contract was also given to the Op for installing the same. It is further averred that the total price of the marble and tiles was Rs.2,00,000/-, whereas Rs.12/- per square feet was fixed for labour charges for affixing the marble and tiles. It is further averred that the possession of the house was given to the complainant in the month of March, 2015.  It is stated that after some days, the complainant found that the marble fixed in the lobby, drawing room, porch and kitchen in the ground floor started to peel off and appeared cracks therein, as such, the complainant approached the OP and apprised about the defects therein.  It is further averred that the Op supplied the defective marble for the lobby, drawing room, porch and kitchen, due to that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- including the cost of the marble and labour charges. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase of the marble and further claimed compensation for mental tension, agony and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint, that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has concealed the fact regarding pendency of the civil suit against the complainant in the civil court and further stated that the matter in dispute involves intricate questions of law and facts  and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the marble and it is denied that the contract was given to the OP for installing the marble and tiles. The complainant has concocted a false story and has tried to mislead the Forum by concealing the true facts. In fact the present complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the suit for recovery filed by the OP against the complainant in the Civil Court, Moonak for recovery of the outstanding amount against the complainant. It is further stated that a total amount of Rs.1,40,848/- is due against the complainant. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 affidavit of Sukhdarshan Singh Mason, Ex.C-3 copy of bill dated 1.4.2014, Ex.C-4 copy of the bill dated 8.4.2014, Ex.C-5 copy of bill dated 20.4.2014, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-19 are photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 copies of bills, Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5 copies of ledger, Ex.OP-6 copy of legal notice, Ex.OP-7 copy of application to police, Ex.OP-8 copy of panchayat compromise, Ex.Op-9 copy of certified copy of civil suit, Ex.OP-10 copy of inspection report dated 6.6.2016, Ex.OP-11 affidavit of Ramdin Chaudhary, Ex.OP-12 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the marble from the OP vide bills, copies of which are on record as Ex.OP-1 to OP-3 on 1.4.2014, 8.4.2014 and 20.4.2014. A bare perusal of Ex.OP-1 shows that out of the bill for Rs.100554/-, the complainant paid only an amount of Rs.70,000/- and there a balance of Rs.30,554/-. Similarly, in the bill dated 8.4.2014 Ex.OP-2, out of the bill amount of Rs.177863/-, the complainant paid only an amount of Rs.80,000/- and there was a balance of Rs.97,863/- and further Ex.OP-3 is the copy of bill for Rs.12431/-.  Further the OP has also produced on record the copy of ledger of the OP in the name of the complainant, which clearly shows that there is a debit balance of Rs.1,40,848/- against the complainant.  To recover the said amount, the Op has also produced Ex.Op-9 copy of the suit for recovery filed on 16.4.2015 by the Op for recovery of Rs.1,61,500/-, which fact has been concealed by the complainant at the time of filing of the present complaint, which shows that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather concealed the true and material fact from the Forum.  It is worth mentioning here that the complainant filed the present complaint on 6.8.2015 alleging defects in the marble, which seems that it is a counter blast against the suit for recovery filed by the Op against the complainant. The complainant has not alleged even a single word that earlier from 6.8.2015, he ever approached the OP about any of the defects in the marble in question nor the complainant got served any legal notice upon the OP about the defects in the marble. Further there is nothing produced by the complainant to rebut the contention of the Ops regarding the recovery suit filed by the OPs. Ex.OP-9 is the copy of the compromise between the complainant and the OP which shows that the matter had already been compromise with them.  As such, it seems that the complainant has filed the present complaint by concealing the material fact of civil suit filed by the OP against the complainant. It is settled law that a party who conceals the true and material facts from the Forum is not entitled to get any relief.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we find no case made out against the OP of any deficiency in service, as such, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 17, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

                                       

                                                           (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member                                                     

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member