Haryana

Sonipat

CC/126/2015

ASHOK KUMAR S/O HARI RAM SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PREM SINGH RAJPUR S/O RAM LA - Opp.Party(s)

MANAN SINGH

08 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                  Complaint No.126 of 2015

Instituted on: 08.04.2015                                                      

Date of order:  27.04.2016

 

 

Ashok Kumar son of Hari Ram Sharma, resident of H.No.59, Gali No.1, Chintpurni Colony, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.        Versus

 

Prem Singh Rajput s/o Ram Lal r/o near Paras Jim, Anand Nagar, Ward no.14, Sonepat.

2^nd Address:- Insan Tiles, House, near Geetanjali Garden, Murthal road, Sonepat.

                                                                                                                                …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Shri Maman Singh, Advocate for complainant.

           Shri RK Khatri, Advocate for respondent.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

 

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he gave contract for construction of double storeyed house situated in Chintpurni Colony, Sonepat  and the rate was agreed as Rs.140/- per sq. feet for first and Rs.160/- per sq. feet for second floor and work was to be completed upto 31.10.2014.   Similarly the complainant gave contract of construction of house on ground floor of the plot measuring 161 Sq. yards situated in the area of village Khewra, distt. Sonepat.  The respondent has started the construction work on 23.4.2014 and stopped the work incomplete on 22.10.2014 in the house measuring 123.44 sq. yards and only constructed the structure. No work has been done by the respondent in the plot measuring 161 Sq. yards.  The respondent has received the total payment of Rs.829850/- against receipts from the complainant. The complainant has requested the respondent so many times to complete the work but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       In reply, the respondent has submitted that  the complainant gave contract for construction of his house upto third floor not upto second floor.  The agreed rate of first floor was Rs.140/-, for second floor Rs.160/- and for third floor was Rs.180/- per sq. feet.   The respondent has received only Rs.3 lacs from the complainant and he has not received the amount of Rs.829850/- from the complainant.   The complainant has said to the respondent to sign on the estimate of Rs.829850/- as the complainant has to take loan and in good faith the respondent has signed on that paper.  But the complainant later-on has used it as receipt of Rs.829850/- against the respondent which is wrong and illegal.  The complainant has threatened the respondent that he is Fauji and he will shoot the complainant and he also did not allow the respondent to lift the balli fatte and also did not allow the respondent to measure the constructed area of the house of the complainant.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments    advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondent has received Rs.829850/- from the complainant but he did not complete the work and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the complainant gave contract for construction of his house upto third floor not upto second floor.  The agreed rate of first floor was Rs.140/-, for second floor Rs.160/- and for third floor was Rs.180/- per sq. feet.   The respondent has received only Rs.3 lacs from the complainant and he has not received the amount of Rs.829850/- from the complainant.   The complainant has said to the respondent to sign on the estimate of Rs.829850/- as the complainant has to take loan and in good faith the respondent has signed on that paper.  But the complainant later-on has used it as receipt of Rs.829850/- against the respondent which is wrong and illegal.  The complainant has threatened the respondent that he is Fauji and he will shoot the complainant and he also did not allow the respondent to lift the balli fatte and also did not allow the respondent to measure the constructed area of the house of the complainant.  The complainant has filed the false and frivolous complaint against the respondent and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

         In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the contract taken and given in between the complainant and the respondent.

         Rather there is dispute between the parties regarding the rate of construction of First floor, second floor and third floor.  There is also a dispute in between the parties that despite having received the huge amount of Rs.829850/- from the complainant, the respondent has failed to complete the work.

         First of all we would like to mention here that there is no written contract in between the parties.  NO copy of any written contract is placed on record by either of the party.  Further more, either of the party has not produced any measurement as to how much work has been done by the respondent and as to how much work is to be done by the respondent.

         The respondent in his written statement has admitted that he received only Rs.3 lacs approximately from the respondent and not Rs.829850/- as alleged by the respondent. 

         The complainant to prove his case has placed on record the photo copies of the photographs.  The photographs in original has not been placed on record and the same has been with-held by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  In our view, no man of common sense can make the payment of such a huge amount of Rs.829850/- to any person until and unless the said person has done the work upto the said amount.  So, in our view, intricated question are involved in the present case and the same cannot be decided under summary proceedings as for deciding the same, an elaborate, cogent and concrete evidence is required which can only be led by both the parties before the Civil Court.  The said cogent and concrete evidence has not been led by either of the party. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present complaint since the complainant has failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  We order accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the competent court of jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievances, if he is advised or desire so.

         Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                         (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF,                        President, DCDRF

Sonepat.                              Sonepat.

 

Announced 27.04.2016