The case of the petitioner is that he ordered before the Op Sadhana Furniture for making one Arch frame and two window frame and door and advanced a sum of Rs.500/- . He was provided with one window set but the doors of another window set was not provided with him. He paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- out of the total bill of Rs.8,300/- and did not pay the rest amount of Rs.4,300/- as he was not provided one window . The act of the oP compelled him to reside in a rented accommodation for which he had to incur a loss of Rs.25,000/- as rent . He has been residing even now unprotected and then approached this forum for compensation etc.
The oP Sadhana Furniture represented by Tapas Dera appeared in the case and submitted by a petition that the petitioner Rana Mallick did not pay him Rs.4,700/- being the price of a frame and so he did not fix the palla and stopped doing his work . There is chance of petitioner not making payment and so he did not fix the palla.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are framed.
Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the complaint ?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration.
In support of his case the petitioner Rana Mallick @ Krishnendu Mallick submitted before this Forum by filing an affidavit that he paid Rs.4,000/- to the Op out of total bill of Rs.8,300/- and one window is not provided to him so he did pay the rest amount. He also prayed for a sum of Rs.25,000/- for rents incurred by him.
The op on the other hand submitted that the petitioner did not pay him the sum of Rs.4,700/- and so he did not fix one window. Later he filed one document wherein he stated that his total due is Rs.8,385/- and in support of such document there is no averment rather he submitted in his W.V. dated 28.11.2014 that he is entitled to Rs.4,700/- from the petitioner. The petitioner also in his petition submitted that he paid Rs.4,000/- out of Rs.8,300/- and thus there is a due of Rs. 4,300/- There is no document or any evidence that due to delay in fixing the window the petitioner had to reside in a rented accommodation and
thus the story of rented accommodation is disbelieved by this forum as well as the payment of rent of Rs.25,000/- .
This is a trifle village claim versus counter claim which cannot be established by any documentary evidence but both parties admitted that there is a due of around Rs.4,300/- from petitioner to Op and the Op is to fix one window set in the residence of petitioner.
On consideration of all the aspects of the matter this forum is of the opinion that the petitioner is to pay Rs.4,500/- to the oP in lumpsum and the op would fix one window door in window of the petitioner.
In view of the above the petitioner succeeds in proving his case in part and he is entitled to get his window doors from the Op and he would pay Rs.4,500/- to the oP .
In the result the claim case succeeds in part.
Court fees paid is correct.
Hence ordered
That the C.Case no. 156 of 2014 be and the same allow on contest in part but without any cost considering and facts and circumstances of the case .
The petitioner is entitled to get his window door fixed by the oP and the petitioner would make payment of Rs. 4,500/- to the Op on the date of fixing the window door. Any of the parties failing to comply the order of the forum then any of the party would be at liberty to put this order in execution within 30 days from the date of this order.
Both parties are directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from this date.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
