Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/18

S.Pritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rachhapl Singh - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi Adv.

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

 

Received by way of transfer Consumer Complaint No.18 of 2018

                                               Date of institution:05.01.2018

                                               Date of Decision:02.01.2023

 

Pritpal Singh aged about 67 years son of Sh. Mohinder Singh, resident of Raikot, District Ludhiana

…….Complainant

Versus

 

Rachpal Singh, son of Chota Singh, resident Bhaini Batinga, District Ludhiana

                                                             ……..Opposite Party

 QUORUM:   

   HON’BLE MR. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   HON’BLE MRS. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

      

Sh.R.S. Mattu, Adv. for complainant

Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Adv. for OPs

              
 

ORDER

 

RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

1. The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant being NRS is owner of residential property situated at above said address. The complainant for the construction area of certain part of its property for double story building and for this purpose, complainant entered into written agreement on astam paper dated 17.7.2014 with the OP for construction of the certain area @ Rs.215/- per sq. ft on certain terms and conditions entered between the parties as per for double story building. The OP thereafter started the construction work and also received certain amounts in cash under his signatures on different dates. The complainant, entire payment of Rs.8,17,000/- has been paid to the OP as on 28.5.2016 against measured area of 3804 sq. ft and it was disclosed by the OP with its undertaking dated 28.5.2016 that work for construction of building has been completed and he has received the entire amount and nothing is due pending. However, due to certain defects, such as crack in bim (23.11 feet), complainant firstly insisted upon the OP to remove the deficiency in work before paying final remaining payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 28.5.2016 but the OP also assured and promised that he will be responsible ever, if any defect, due to crack because of sink/down falling of bim and he given in writing dated 28.5.2016 that he will be responsible ever, if any defect, due to crack because of down falling of bim but despite of receiving entire payments till date, the OP failed to remove the defects under his knowledge at the time of receiving final payment as assured and promised dated 28.5.2016 which is required to be completed by the OP as such OP entered deficient/negligent services as well as adopted unfair trade practice. After completion of construction work by the OP and occupying the constructed building for residence need, complainant noticed that from bath room walls, water is being outflow and walls are being wet. OP was informed to visit and removed the deficiency in defects/fault caused during construction of building but till date OP failed to remove the defect and deficiency as such OP rendered negligent services as well as adopted unfair trade practice. As per clause No.15 of the written agreement between the parties, the OP undertaken to complete the work of plumber under the construction rate but said work was not done properly and effectively which resulted leakage of water from the water pipes inside the walls and said cemented walls fixed with tiles losing its strength and bath room and surrounding walls of rooms are gone completely wet but till date OP failed to remove the defect and deficiency as such Op rendered negligent services as well as adopted unfair trade practice.  Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, the complainant prayed for the following reliefs against the OP:- 
   1. To remove the defect in construction work as disclosed above without further delay and in case of failure to do so, the OP be penalized to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for getting repairing of old water pipes and installing of new water pipes/reconstruction of walls by the complainant along with for removing the defect in the construction work which will cot app. Rs.3,00,000/- or more to the complainant. The OP be also penalized to Rs.1,50,000/- with cost of litigation of Rs.22,000/- for rendering deficiency in service and negligence in services and for adopting unfair trade practice which cause mental tension.   
2.  Upon notice, the OP has filed written reply stating therein the complainant had approached to the OP for construction work on labour rate as the complainant had seen the construction work completed through the OP in the locality on labour rate and the agreement dated 17.7.2014 was scribed between the complainant and OP had completed the work of complainant properly and the entire work was completed under the supervision of complainant by mason and labour, even in the presence of complainant. The complainant had purchased the entire material for construction the work including cement, sand, saria, Iron, electricity pipe, water pile, tiles etc of his own consent and will and the entire work completed by Mason and labourer in the presence of the complainant and also under his supervision. The mason and labourer had done his work of construction under the instruction of the complainant. As the complainant had  requested to the Op that he will complete his work of his house under his supervision and as per his own demand and he have only mason and labourer. The perfect labour and meson were given to complete his entire construction work on labour rate. The masons and labourers had completed done his work properly which due precaution and in full perfection and had used its skill perfect material and mixture of sand and cement with care and precaution, even in the presence of complainant. Moreover, the masons and labourers had completed so many houses before the construction work of house of the complainant but the complainant had made concocted story in order to take the compensation from the OP without any sufficient cause or reason. Rest of allegations made by the complainant against the OP have denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. 
3.  In support of the complaint, the complainant has tendered various documents. On the other hand, the OP has also tendered documents in support of their evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
5. Both the parties, the complainant and the OP entered into written agreement on date 17.7.2014 for construction work of house on certain terms and conditions and entire payment were made by the complainant to the OP on 28.5.2016 after the completion of construction work. As complainant occupied the building for residential purpose and he noticed the careless and negligent work done by the masons and labourers of OP, which resulted various technical defects in the constructed building due to this which may fall at any time during any natural calamities may be proved fatal as per expert report shown in Ex.C2/2 by the complainant. Appreciating the documentary evidences as well as arguments advanced by the complainant are sufficient to prove the negligence done by the OP. This commission is of the considered opinion that complainant has been able to prove deficiency/negligent services and unfair trade practices on the part of the OP. So, the deficiency is apparent and the complaint deserves to be allowed. In the light of above discussion made above the complainant stands allowed with the directions to the OP to pay the complainant as per prayed by him in the main complaint Rs.3,00,000/-  for repair work and Rs.3,00,000/- for removing defect in the construction work total Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 7% per per annum from the date of order till payment. The complainant is also liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as mental agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District

Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room.

•  

January, 02, 2022

(Ranjit Singh)

•  

                                   

 

(Ranvir Kaur)

•