BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.207 of 2012
Date of Institution : 15.10.2012
Date of Decision : 5.2.2016
Makhan Ram, aged 55 years son of Sh.Shama Ram Kamboj, r/o village Moujdin, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Parveen Godara son of Sh.Ami Lal Godara, r/o village Jodhpuria, distt.Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT.GURPREET KAUR GILL……PRESIDING MEMBER.
SH.RAJIV MEHTA…… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.B.S.Thind, Advocate for complainant.
Op exparte.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he owned approximately 10 acres land in village Moujdin as well as Madhosinghana in Distt. Sirsa. As alleged, Op alongwith his brothers doing the work of leveling the land in the name of “Godara JCB Machine and Computer Karaha”. As alleged on 14.6.2012, complainant contacted to Op for leveling his two acre land in village Moujdin and as advised by the Op, he got rotavator work in his land from one Sh.Vakil Chand son of Lachhman Dass of village Moujdin by paying Rs.2000/- and ordinary Karaha work from one Sh.Kishore Kumar by paying Rs.2800/-.Thereafter, Op leveled the land by his computer Karaha and received Rs.3500/- from the complainant for this work. In this way, complainant spent Rs.8300/- in all for leveling his two acres land.
2. Grievance of the complainant is that when on very next day, he watering the land then he noticed that land has not been leveled. Upon this, complainant approached to the Op, who assured for doing the needful and sought two days time but he did not do the same and lastly refused to accept his request. Finding no way, on 29.6.2012 he got rotavator work again from above Vakil Chand by paying Rs.4000/- and ordinary Karaha work from abovesaid Kishor Chand by paying Rs.2000/-. Thereafter, he got leveled his land through computer from one Sh.Sohan Singh S/o Zail Singh of village Moujdin by paying Rs.3600/-. In this way, complainant spent Rs.9600/- again on 29.6.2012. It is further alleged that due to deficiency on the part of the Op, he could not sown his Dhan crop in time and suffered with loss of Rs.15000/-. Hence, this complaint seeking the lump sum relief of Rs.94000/- alongwith interest.
3. On notice, opposite party appeared and contested the case. As per the version of the Op, he did not provide any service to the complainant. So, there is no question of deficiency in service. It is further replied that respondent is not doing the work of leveling the land by way of computerized karaha. Opposite party further denied the allegations of the complaint in toto.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant produced his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A; affidavit of one Pushp Raj, Member village panchayat Moujdin Ex.CW2/A; affidavit of one Vakil Chand s/o Lachhman Dass Ex.CW3/A; affidavit of Kishore Chand s/o Gokal Chand Ex.CW4/A; affidavit of Sohan Singh s/o Zail Singh Ex.CW5/A; copy of jamabandi Ex.C1; legal notice Ex.,C2; postal receipts Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 and closed his evidence on 27.8.2014. Thereafter, several opportunities have been accorded to the respondent for evidence. Ultimately, on 22.9.2015 respondent was proceeded exparte .
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the complainant.
6. From the perusal of evidence of the complainant alongwith his complaint as detailed above, we are of the considered view that complainant has successfully proved his case. On the other hand, there is no iota of evidence on record on behalf of Op and even OP has failed to file his own affidavit. Despite availing several opportunities to prove his version during the period of approximate one year, Op failed to bring any document on record to prove his version. Moreover, he ran away from the proceedings of the Forum without rebutting the evidence of the complainant. Mere filing of written version denying the allegations of the complaint does not prove the case of Op especially when there is a series of documents on the record produced by the complainant in order to prove his case. As such, complaint in hand deserves acceptance. Accordingly, we accept the complaint partly. In our view, it will be met the end of justice if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5000/-. We order accordingly. Op is directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days from today, failing which complainant would be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15.10.2012 till realization. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:.5.2.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Makhan Ram Vs. Parveen Godara
Present: Sh.B.S.Thind, Advocate for complainant.
Op exparte.
Arguments heard. For order to come up on 5.2.2016.
Dated:27.1.2016.
Member. Presiding Member,
DCDRF,Sirsa.
Present: Sh.B.S.Thind, Advocate for complainant.
Op exparte.
Order announced. Vide separate order of even date, complaint has been partly allowed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated:5.2.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
