The complaint case is that complainant made an agreement with OP on 06.07.2014 for fixing CPVC Pipe line for shower line, EWC line, basin line and some accessories in his room. The cost amount was Rs. 1,20,000/- total amount of cost was Rs. 1,24,995/-. The complainant has filed work order. But the OP employed another man whose work was not satisfactory and the same was not done by 90 days from the date of agreement. It is alleged that quality of work was below standard and the progress of work is also low. Deployed labourers were unskilled without having any modernized architecture planning and without any capacity of interior designing. Thus, complainant was not satisfied with the work. The work was not satisfactory. The complainant wrote a letter to OP on 19.01.2015. Inspite of getting letter the OP did not take any action for development of the project work given by the complainant as per Annexure - 1. Hence, this case for compensation.

2)  The OP files W/V denying, inter alia, all material allegations aroused by the complainant. OP has raised counter-allegation of the complainant that complainant did not allow the OP to complete the work and complainant refused the ordered materials by the OP. As per order of OP, those accessories were brought. Finally the complainant took delivery of materials on 28.10.2014 for fixtures and accessories in bathroom which causes huge delay in the progress of the work. The job site was given to the OP on 30.07.2014 and the concealed plumbing work was completed within 20.08.2014 by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, OP was compelled to stop work. And OP was prevented to complete that work. Hence, accordingly OP is not liable for any damages because complainant did not allow them to work.

3)  Complainant filed Evidence-in-Chief, OP has filed Evidence-in-Chief, complainant has filed Brief Notes of Argument, OP has filed Brief Notes of Argument. Complainant filed Xerox copies of i) Estimate for work of Bath room dated 06.07.2014, ii) Work order form dated 14.12.13, iii) Bills which are paid and duly received, iv) Letter dated 19.01.2015, v) Letter sent by the complainant and his advocate.

POINTS FOR DECISIONS

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2.  If there is any deficiency in the work of the OP?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

4)  The complainant in his Evidence stated his case. OP also in his evidence stated his case. Oral evidence is nothing but oath vs. oath. The document which has been filed by the complainant and stated to be work order has not been proved as evidence. The signatures of the OP have not been proved by the complainant. The alleged work order and interior decorations of the rooms of the complainant is yet to be brought into the record without which nothing can be presumed. It  also appears that first time complainant refused working and second time complainant allowed working. No iota of evidence regarding the nature and quality of work of OP. Merely allegation of bad quality substance and not trained worker stated to be deployed by the OP cannot be considered as sacrosanct to make conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It is surfaced that the bone of contention between the parties is bad quality of materials, bad quality of labour and not completion of work within the time schedule when time was the essence of the contract. But the complainant himself has demolished his case, by allowing the OP to work again and again. Such capricious attitude of complainant cannot be relied on to visualize the action of OP. Preponderances of probabilities does not make any help to the complainant that the OP has not done the work in accordance with the standard mark. And what was the standard mark had not been brought into record by sufficient, cogent and trustworthy material before this Forum.

5)  So, after swimming over the both parties’ allegation and counter-allegation and document therein, we cannot but make conclusion that the burden of proof has not been discharged by complainant upto the need of the case. Accordingly, our deliberations convinced us to pass order against the present complainant.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDAINED

            That the Complaint Case being no. 75 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

            Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties at once.