BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.326 of 2015

Date of Instt. 04.08.2015

Date of Decision :24.01.2017

Krishan Singh Dua aged about 78 years, son of Sh Amar Nath resident of WC-64, Mohalla Kot Bahadur Khan, near Rainik Bazar, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

Pappu Contractor Son of Pritam Singh Contractor R/o H. No.749, near Unique Home, Taran Wali Gali, Dashmesh Public School Model House, Jalandhar.

. ........Opposite party

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh, (President),

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. BB Sekhri, Adv. Counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Subhash Sharma, Adv. Counsel for Opposite Party.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant Krishan Singh Dua, wherein alleged that the complainant enter into an oral agreement to get the services of the opposite party for repairing/renovation of the house of the complainant and an estimate has been given by the opposite party to the complainant on 20.08.2014. Ultimately the complainant hired the services with material in order to get his house repaired/renovated from the opposite party and the opposite party worked for the period 20.08.2014 to 09.09.2014 and during this period the complainant paid Rs.1,26,000/- on different dates as per the demand of the opposite party. That after undertaking the above said job, the mason and labour of the opposite party had left the job and gone to their respective native places on 09.09.2014. That again on 19.09.2014 the complainant again approached to the opposite party and the opposite party assured the complainant that the opposite party will depute the mason and labour and the material will be provided by the complainant. But inspite of providing the material by the complainant the work has not yet been completed so far.

2. That it is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- in cash to the opposite party upto 09.09.2014. But the opposite party neither completed the assigned work of the complainant nor produced any statement of expenses before the complainant. It is note worthy here that the opposite party sold out the scrap material including Lahauri bricks worth Rs.50,000/- belonging to the complainant without his consent and had pocketed the sale price of the same which has not been paid to the complainant despite repeated demands meaning thereby the opposite party have misappropriated the property of the complainant, hence cheated the complainant. Even the opposite party did not complete renovation work assigned to the opposite party by the complainant then under such constrained circumstances, the complainant got the work done from other masons by spending more than Rs.75,000/- from his own pocket. The complainant approached the opposite party time and again but at all the occasions the opposite party put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. All the limits have been crossed over, as and when the complainant tried to contact the opposite party on telephone, the telephone of the opposite party found remained switched off. Thereafter the complainant has also approached the parents of the opposite party but no fruitful results have been yielded so far. From the above said illegal acts and conducts of the opposite party, it shows and proves that the opposite party is telling a lie and the opposite party did not complete the work assigned to the opposite party by the complainant and the complainant suffered a great mental tension, harassment and humiliation and legal notice was given to the opposite party but remain in vain and necessity arose to file the complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and the opposite parties be directed to pay the amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum till the actual date of realization of the amount. The complainant further entitle to claim Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss etc and litigation expenses from the opposite party.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party who appeared through his counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking a plea that the complaint of the complainant is prima facie not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed because the complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and further admitted that the complainant approached the opposite party for the repair/renovation of his house. The work to be done by the opposite party was with material for Rs.1,25,000/- lump sum as per verbal agreement between the parties. The opposite party completed the assigned work within a stipulated period and during the said agreed work the complainant paid only Rs.80,000/- whereas the settlement between the parties was to pay Rs.1,25,000/- by the complainant and Rs.45,000/- is still remains un-paid beside paying the said amount the complainant filed the instant complaint just to grab the remaining amount and lastly submitted that the complaint is without merit and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the claim of the complainant, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C7 and also brought on the file affidavit of Jagwinder Singh as Ex.CB and one document Ex.C8 and then closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Pappu Ex.R1 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After considering the argument put forth by learned counsel for the party, it reveals that the factum of oral agreement for repairing the house of the complainant is admitted by both the party. The complainant alleged that he has paid Rs.1,26,000/- whereas the opposite party alleged that the total amount was agreed to Rs.1,25,000/- for the entire renovation work and out of that Rs.80,000/- was paid by the complainant and Rs.45,000/- is still remaining un-paid and opposite party also alleged that the agreed work has been already completed within stipulated period and as such the instant complaint is not maintainable.

8. We find that the oral agreement is admitted by the opposite party and now question remains what was the total amount settled between the parties for repairing/renovation of the house of the complainant for that purpose the complainant has not mentioned the total amount which is settled to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party for renovation of the house. The complainant simply alleged that he has paid Rs.1,26,000/-, if virtually the complainant has paid Rs.1,26,000/- then he must has bring on the file the receipts duly signed by the opposite party but no such receipts has been brought on the file by the complainant rather the complainant has a document Ex.C5 which is not signed by the opposite party and it means the complainant himself prepared the said statement and if the same is not signed by the opposite party then it cannot be taken into consideration to the effect that the opposite party has received Rs.1,26,000/-. To the contrary the opposite party himself admitted that he has received Rs.80,000/- out of total settled amount Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.45,000/- is still remained, no doubt the version of the complainant is corroborated by one Jagwinder Singh through his affidavit Ex.CB but there is a totally oral evidence of the complainant and no document has been brought on the file to establish the allegations made in the complaint and moreover if the work of the complainant is not completed by the opposite party then the same should be got checked from expert witness and who is required to appear in this Forum and submitted his affidavit by giving a detail of the work which is remained to be completed but no such evidence has been brought on the file which shows the complainant has miserably failed to establish the allegations and as such we do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and therefore the complaint is dismissed. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

24.01.2017 Member President