Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/151/2022

Mahender Singh Arya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pardeep - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajay Verma

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. 151 of 2022

                                                          Date of Institution:  06.06.2022

                                                          Date of  Decision: 10.04.2024  

 

Mahender Singh Arya, age about 67 years son of Sh. Basti Ram, resident of village Imlota, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri. 7015345294

 

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

Pardeep son of Sh. Balbir, resident of village Chandabas, Tehsil and District Bhiwani

 

                                                                   …....Opposite Party. 

 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

Before: -      Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

                  

Present:        Sh. Ajay Verma, Advocate for the Complainant.

                   Opposite party already exparte vide order dt.26.08.2022.

       

ORDER    

 1.                 Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he  hired the service of OP as Carpenter.  In this regard, it was orally agreed to undertake wooden work in new house and to make all fixtures of doors and windows, fix iron jali and glass with doors and windows. The OP was to pay the cost of fixtures himself for wood, iron jali and glass with doors and window etc. It was also agreed that the OP would complete the entire work within a period of one month i.e. 02.11.2021 to 01.12.2021 and this work would be awarded @Rs.360/- per square feet for the wooden work. During continuation of work of wooden i.e. doors, windows etc. the complainant objected on the quality of wood which was used in doors and windows then OP said that “I am carpenter and I have full knowledge regarding the quality of wood and you don’t know anything about wooden quality”. The OP assured the complainant that if any defect occurs in future then he would be responsible for the same. It is averred that after starting summer season, the wood used in the doors and windows started drying as a result of which occurred gap of 10 to 12 mm and skewness between the doors and windows. Not only this, some gap also occurred between the wood and jali and resultantly dust flies and misquotes enters in the house. Due to poor quality of work done, the house is totally ruined. The complainant has not completed the work within agreed time frame. The complainant has paid the entire payment after completion of work for Rs.97,200/- (i.e. Rs. 62,000/- in cash and Rs. 35,000/- through NEFT). As the OP used inferior quality material, the complainant served a legal notice dated 22.04.2022 and reminder on 12.05.2022 upon the opposite party but the said legal notice and reminder have not brought any fruitful result. This wrongful act of the opposite party has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint. It is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to remove the defective doors and windows from the house of complainant and reinstall the same with new one and in alternative return the amount of Rs. 97,200/- which was paid by the complainant to the OP alongwith compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post and the delivery of notice issued to the OP was found confirmed. But as none appeared on behalf of OP, he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.08.2022 passed by this Commission.

3.                The complainant in his evidence tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW1/B and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed the evidence on 01.03.2023.

                   During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents placed on record by the complainant

4.             We have heard the exparte arguments of learned counsel of the complainant and gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the complainant very carefully and minutely

5.                It has emerged from the above facts that there are two points which are to be decided by this Commission. Firstly whether oral agreement is enforceable or not and secondly whether there is deficiency on the part of OP or not. The answer to both the points is in affirmative. Hon’ble Supreme Court  in the case of Alka  Bose Vs. Parmatma Devi  & ors ( Civil appeal No(s). 6197 of 2000)   has held that even a sale agreement can be oral and have the same binding value and enforceability, as a written agreement. Hence, the oral agreement between the complainant and the OP has enforceability. The complainant has transferred an amount of Rs. 35,000/- to the OP through NEFT on 03.01.2022, which proves that there was some arrangement between the parties may be for the wooden work undertaken at the house of the complainant. However, there is no evidence for balance payment.

6.                We have observed that in the present complaint, the complainant by filing his affidavit Ex. CW-1/A has corroborated the contents of his complaint as true and correct, and further placed on record photographs Ex.C6 to Ex.C11. Complainant in support of his case has filed the statement of account of complainant as per which the amount of Rs.35,000/- has been transferred in the account of opposite party (Ex.C1).  By issuing legal notice to the OP, the complainant has made request to compensate him for the alleged loss but he did not pay any heed to this genuine grievance. It is also on record that opposite party did not appear before the Commission despite service as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and all allegations levelled by the complainant against the opposite party stands proved. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we hereby allow the complaint partially and direct the opposite party as under:-

1. To remove the defect and install the doors and windows at proper place with proper fitting or alternatively pay Rs. 35,000/- paid by the complainant on 03.01.2022 through NEFT alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization.
2.  To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand Only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service.
3.   To pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant.

8.                This order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order.

9.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced.

Dated: - 10.04.2024