DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/3 of 1.1.2010 Decided on: 16.8.2010 Balwant Singh, aged about 42 years,S/o Sh.Balkar Singh, R/o Waraich Colony, Samana, District Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Pritam Singh-Meson(Mistry) son of S.Kartar Singh R/o Malkana Patti, near Pappi Depot, Samana, District Patiala. 2. Joginder Singh S/o Sh.Pritam Singh-Meson(Mistry),R/o Malkana Patti , near Pappi Depot, Samana, District Patiala. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Amar Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh.Gurnam Singh, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Balwant Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties for construction of the house of the complainant. Wages for Rs.300/- per day were settled between both the parties and the opposite parties started the construction work on 8.9.2009 from the plinth level of the house, which had already been built. The opposite parties also engaged his son Joginder Singh i.e. opposite party no.2 with him as co-mason. He was also paid same wages as were settled with opposite party no.1.The opposite parties completed the linter work on 17.10.2009 and their wages were paid as settled. That when the shuttering and centering for RCC Slab were removed, following discrepancies were notices:- a) Number of holes/deep lines were seen in the ceiling of the slab. b) Iron bars and beams were seen as they were not fully covered with mixed material. c) Even the surface of ceiling was not filled up with the required material properly. d) Some cracks were also seen in the ceiling. e) The construction of walls was not smooth and un uniform. f) The joints of slab were not properly fixed. That the complainant called the opposite parties at his residence and above short comings were brought to their notice. That the deficiency was also shown to SV Associates, Samana and a report was obtained and some snaps were also taken in this regard. That due to these short comings the proper strength of the linter of the house could not be ensured. It may prove risky at any time. That deficiencies were got removed by engaging another mason as the house was to be furnished at the earliest for the marriage of the son of the complainant. The complainant was briefed by the mason, who was again engaged that these shortcomings were the result of negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite parties. Had they done the work carefully and in due care, these short comings could have been avoided. That the complainant had to spend extra money on additional labour charges and material. This also resulted in wastage of time of the complainant. At least, an amount of Rs.50000/-was involved in this process. That the complaint in this regard was also lodged in the Local Police Station, Samana. That it is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. That in the facts and circumstances stated above, the complainant suffered mental agony and physical harassment for which he needs to be compensated. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that the opposite parties worked from 15.10.2007 to 20.10.2009 at the rate of Rs.7500/- per month each. In fact the complainant does not know the meaning of unfair trade practice hence the deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant does not arise hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed. In fact it is not the complainant but the opposite parties who suffered mental agony and physical harassment at the hands of the complainant who threatened to teach a lesson to the opposite parties as he claims that he is highly connected with the police officers. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The complainant has filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The case of complainant is that he availed the services of the opposite parties for construction of his house. It is also the case of the complainant that wages for Rs.300/- per day were settled and the opposite parties started the construction work on 8.9.2009 from the plinth level of the house, which had already been built. It is also the case of the complainant that opposite parties also engaged his son Joginder Singh with him as co-mason. He was also paid the same wages as were settled with opposite party no.1.The opposite parties completed the linter work on 17.10.2009 and their wages were paid as settled. It is also the case of the complainant that when the shuttering and centering for RCC Slab were removed a number of holes/deep lines were seen in the ceiling of the slab. It is also the case of the complainant that iron bars and beams were seen as they were not fully covered with mixed material. Even the surface of ceiling was not filled up with the required material properly, some cracks were also seen in the ceiling, the construction of walls was not smooth and un uniform and joints of slab were not properly fixed. It is also the case of the complainant that he called the opposite parties and these short comings were brought to their notice. The deficiency was also shown to SV Associates, Samana and a report was obtained . It is also the case of the complainant that due to these short comings the proper strength of the linter of the house could not be ensured, it may prove risky at any time. It is also the case of the complainant that these deficiencies were got removed by engaging another mason as the house was to be furnished at the earliest for the marriage of his son . It is also the case of the complainant that he was briefed by the mason, who was again engaged that these shortcomings were the result of negligence and carelessness and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and he had to spend extra money on additional labour charges and material. This also resulted in wastage of his time and an amount of Rs.50000/-was involved in this process. 7. Whereas the case of opposite parties is that they worked from 15.10.2007 to 20.10.2009 at the rate of Rs.7500/- per month each. It is also the case of the opposite parties that in fact it is not the complainant but they suffered mental agony and physical harassment at the hands of the complainant who threatened to teach a lesson to them as he claimed that he is highly connected with the police officers. 8. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 9. In order to substantiate his claim the complainant has placed on record report,Ex.C2 of S.V.Associates and the photographs, Exs.C3 to C10. The perusal of the report of S.V.Associates,Ex.C2 would show that it leads us to no where. The report is silent regarding the extra expenditure incurred by the complainant after the opposite parties had completed the linter work. The case of the complainant is that due to the shortcomings in the work of opposite parties the proper strength of the linter of the house could not be ensured and that it may prove risk at any time. The opposite parties have rebutted the claim of the complainant by examining Space Associates who have given the report,Ex.R3. As per the report,Ex.R3 the entire work done in the house of the complainant was done in nice and proper way and is free from any defect. 10. So from the evidence led on record by both the parties there has not been shown any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 11. In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:16.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | , | | 
