Haryana

Sirsa

CC/16/306

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mukesh Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

JBL Garg

13 Jun 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/306
 
1. Sanjeev Kumar
Ding Road Disst Sirsa
Sirsa
Haryana
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar
Village Gilla Khera Teh Disst Fatehabad
Fatehabad
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:JBL Garg, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mukesh, Advocate
Dated : 13 Jun 2017
Final Order / Judgement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.306 of 2016                                                                       

                                                           Date of Institution         :    28.11.2016.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.6.2017

 

Sanjeev Kumar, aged 30 years, son of Shri Krishan Lal, resident of Ding Road, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

 Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Gulab Chand, resident of village Gilla Khera, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                   ...…Opposite party.

         

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI RAGHBIR SINGH…………………PRESIDENT

          SMT. RAJNI GOYAT……………………MEMBER

SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.  

Present:       Sh.JBL Garg,  Advocate for the complainant.

     Sh. Mukesh Kumar, opposite party in person.

 

 

                   ORDER

 

                    The case of complainant in brief, is that opposite party is a marble mason by profession. In the month of March, 2016, the complainant gave contract to the op for fixing marble and tiles etc. in an area measuring approximately 2200 square feet in his building at its basement, lobby situated at Ding Road, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The opposite party took the said contract at the rate of Rs.18/- per square feet. The opposite party undertook the said work at the shop premises of the complainant but while fixing the marble and titles in the said premises, the op damaged the corners of marbles and tiles and then filled the same with cement/ grout and the complainant lodged a protest in this regard with the op whereupon he stated that he has filled the cracks with cement/grout and there will be no problem to the complainant in future. The op charged a sum of Rs.37,200/- from the complainant being contract amount. It is further averred that however after few days of fixing the marbles and tiles, the same started leaving their places and several of such marble pieces and tiles came out of the flooring. The complainant reported the said defect to the op and requested for removal of the defect but the op did not pay any heed to the same and refused to do anything. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.1.25 lacs on purchase of marble and tiles and Rs.70,000/- on cement, sand, crasher etc. besides above said amount of Rs.37,200/- and in this manner, he incurred a total sum of Rs.2,32,000/- on flooring of his aforesaid premises but opposite party caused gross negligence in fixing the marble and tiles which gave very bad result. So, the complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.2,32,200/- from the op. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment etc. It is further averred that complainant approached the op on many occasions and requested him to refund the above said amount alongwith compensation but he did not pay any heed to the same. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the op through registered post on 8.8.2016 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that only contents of giving contract to the op at the above said rate is correct but all other contents of the complaint are wrong and incorrect. It has been asserted that op is an experienced mason of marble and is doing the said work for the last six years. It is incorrect that op has caused any damage to the marble and tiles while fixing the same at the premises of the complainant and complainant did not raise any kind of complaint in this regard during the above said work. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.37,200/- to the op for said work. Had there been any mistake on the part of op, the complainant would not have paid any amount to him. It has been further asserted that the op has done the work as per terms of the contract and complainant has leveled false and baseless allegations against the op only to usurp the remaining amount of his labour. The complainant was liable to pay total amount of Rs.57348/- to him as his labour work for the above said work but he only paid an amount of Rs.37,200/- and told that he will pay remaining amount of Rs.20,148/- later on but did not pay said amount to the op despite his several visits and asking to the respectable persons rather the complainant threatened him that in case he will come again for demanding the above said amount, then he will teach him a lesson and will implicate him in  a false case. There was no deficiency in the work conducted by the op. He had done the work of fixing marbles and tiles in the month of March, 2016 and had there been any complaint in his work, the complainant should have asked him at that time or after completion of work but the complainant has filed this complaint after about eight months of completion of work with a view to grab his amount of labour work. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.

3.                In evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.P1, affidavit of Ravinder Singh Ex.P2, report of Ramesh Kumar Mason Ex.P3, photographs Ex.P4 to Ex.P6, copy of bill Ex.P7, writing dated 25.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.37,200/- Ex.P8, copy of legal notice Ex.P9 and postal receipt Ex.P10. On the other hand, op has made a statement that the written statement filed by him be read in his evidence and he does not want to lead any other evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and opposite party in person and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                 The complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.P1 wherein he has testified all the facts so set out by him in his complaint. His testimony is also corroborated by affidavit of one Ravinder Singh son of Balwant Singh, resident of village Sangha, Tehsil Sardulgarh, Distt. Mansa. Further, the complainant has placed on file report of Ramesh Kumar Mason of Marble as Ex.P3 in which he has mentioned that he works as mason of marble and tiles for the last 10/12 years. On 25.3.2017, he saw the floor of the shop of the complainant and the tiles were fixed in a very wrong way. He has further mentioned that at the time of fixing the tiles by the mason, same have been pressed with hammer etc. due to which 80% tiles have come out from all four corners in small pieces i.e. have been damaged. He has further mentioned that due to filling of grout in the broken tiles, the floor is giving ugly look and this happened due to negligence and hurry of the Mason. The said report is also signed by one Sh. M.L. Phutela, c/o Goldee Footwear Ding Road as a witness. Further, the complainant has also placed on file a writing dated 25.5.2016 wherein the opposite party has acknowledged receipt of Rs.37,200/- from the complainant and same bears his signatures besides signatures of above said Ravinder Singh Virk as a witness. Moreover, the op has also admitted about receiving of this amount from the complainant. The photographs Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 also show that tiles are broken from corners. The evidence produced by the complainant has not been rebutted by the op. Opposite party has also not produced even a single document in support of his averments. So, it is proved on record that work of fixing marble and tiles was not done correctly by the op and was done with some negligence due to which the same started leaving places within a very short period and the op has not removed the defect despite assurance given by him to the complainant.

6.                Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence, we partly allow the present case and direct the opposite party to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.23,000/- in lump sum. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied with by the opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said principal amount of Rs.23,000/- will carry interest @10% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 28.11.2016 till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.                                       

Announced in open Forum.                                 President,

Dated:13.6.2017.                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                             Member                Member

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.