BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:123 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 06.03.2012.
Date of Decision:20.01.2017
Vinod Kumar aged about 42 years son of Sh. Rameswar Dass, resident of Rajbir Market, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
Narender son of Sh. Balbir, resident of Near Bharam Kumari Ashram, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Sh. Vijender Panwar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. N.K. Jangra, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had constructed the residential house at Kath Mandi Charkhi Dadri, and three room and one bedroom has been constructed, the complainant had availed the services of the OP to fix marbel stones, tiles etc. for a construction. It is alleged that the OP had inadequately in un-equal manner fixed the marbel stone slabs, tiles due to which the water is loging in the bathroom, Barambda and loby etc. and the OP was not slabed the marble stone in accurate level due to which the floors is appearing bad. It is alleged that he paid Rs. 90,997/- to the OP. He also served a legal notice dated 11.11.2011 but no reply was given. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of responden and as such he had to file the present complaint for compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the kaccha floor of the house of the complainant was already constructed by the complainant and the same was not in the level, even the DPC level was not correct. It is submitted that the answering respondent, prior to starting his work informed the complainant that since the height of marble stone is only half inch therefore, perfect leveling in the floor is not possible. It is submitted that the complainant was not paid the amount of 90997/- to the answering respondent. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit Exhibit R-1.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the OP was engaged by the complainant to fix the floor marble stones, wall tiles etc. in his house. The OP has inadvertently and imperfectly fix the marble stone, tiles etc in the house of the complainant, due to which the water is loging on the floor of the house. The marble stone and tiles are not in accurate level. He submitted that the complainant paid Rs. 90,997/- as repair charges to the OP for fixing of marble stone and tiles etc. for which he has obtained the receipt dated 30.09.2011 from the OP. The agreement is dated 03.10.2010. He further submitted that the complainant engaged Vijay Kumar Jain, Draftsman Civil Authorize Architect to inspect the marble floor and tiles etc. and to give his report, who submitted his report dated 16.02.2012, which is Annexure C-3.
6. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is false and baseless. The OP has to fix the marble stone and tiles etc. on the floors, which are prepared by the manson. Hence the level of the floors etc. is to be done by the manson. He further submitted that no expert opinion has been submitted by the complainant. The report Annexure C-3 cannot be considered.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the OP has done the work of fixing marble, tiles etc. in the house of the complainant. The counsel for the OP has taken the plea that for the inaccuracy in the floors etc., the OP is not liable because the floors are prepared by the manson and OP is doing the work of only fixing the marble stones and tiles etc. on the surface. We are not convinced with the arguments of the counsel for the OP. If there was any fault on the floors prepared for the fixing of marbles then it was the duty of the OP to tell the complainant to get rectified the defects in the floor, then he should have done the work of fixing the marble stones and tiles etc. Considering the facts of the case, we found substance in the complaint of the complainant. The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against the OP. The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant, within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, thereafter the OP shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 20.01.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
