Haryana

Ambala

CC/7/2014

KRISHAN LAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJ KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

C.M.RANA

08 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

                                                                                 Complaint Case No. : 7 of 2014

         Date of Institution    : 03.01.2014

           Date of Decision       : 08.09.2017

 

Krishan Lal son of Shri Des Raj resident of House No.1171, Jammu Colony (Camp) near Petrol Pump Radour Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Raj Kumar son of Shri Chura Ram Dhiman r/o V.P.O. Karasan Tehsil Naraingarh District Ambala.

……Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH.D.N.ARORA,PRESIDENT.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA,MEMBER.

                        SH.PUSHPENDER KUMAR,MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. C.M.Rana, Adv. for complainant.

                        Sh. J.S.Rathaur, counsel for the OP.

 

ORDER

 

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that the OP deals in the business of tubewell boring/ installation of its equipment/material and work of submersible motor by taking contract of the same. The complainant gave a contract of his submersible tubewell boring including all material/fitting of pipes and labour etc. for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- and the complainant was to provide motor etc. The Op did not work at the land of complainant from 20 June 2012 to 24 June 2012. After completion of work the Op assured that if any problem occurs in the tubewell then he would be responsible for the same. On this, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.1,40,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.1 lac issued by one Jaswinder Singh) to the OP. The tubewell started giving problem from the first day of its installation due to using of sub-standard material by the OP. The complainant requested the OP to redress his grievance but he avoided the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to the act and conduct of the Op, the complainant has not only suffered financial loss but also suffered mental agony and harassment, therefore, he got legal notice served upon the OP but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure C1, Annexure C2 and documents Annexure C3 to Annexure C8.

2.                                 On notice, OP appeared and filed its reply wherein it has taken preliminary objections such as locus standi, maintainability, cause of action and jurisdciton etc.  It has been submitted that the OP is doing the work of tubewell boring for the last 25 years and the submersible tubewell motor was bored in the land of the complainant in the month of June, 2012 from 16.06.2012 to 21.06.2012 as the complainant had contacted the Op for this work in May, 2012. The contract for a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- was  given to him and not for Rs.2,40,000/- and the plastic pipes, motor, driver and other equipments were to be provided by the complainant.  No guarantee/warrantee was ever given to the complainant and the complainant had never paid Rs.1,40,000/- in cash.  He had only paid Rs.1  lac through cheque after satisfying with the work.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the work was done upto the satisfaction of the complainant.  In evidence the Op has tendered his affidavit Annexure R1 on the case file.

3.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully.

4.                     It is not disputed that the complainant had hired the services of the OP for the work of boring of submersible motor in his land. It is also not disputed that Rs. 1 lac was paid to the Op through cheque.

5.                                 The version of the complainant is that as per contract if the tubewell fails within a period of 12 months after its boring then the Op would be responsible for the same but the tubewell did not run properly even from the date of its installation and the OP did not redress his grievance despite many requests, therefore, he had suffered financial loss as he could not fetch crop which he ought to have received if the tubewell had worked properly. It has been further pleaded by the complainant that the contract was for Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.1,40,000/- was given in cash and Rs.1 lac was paid through cheque issued by one Jaswinder Singh.

6.                                 On the other hand the defence of the Op is that the contract was for Rs.1,06,000/- and the complainant had paid Rs.1 lac through cheque only  after completing the work upto his satisfaction and no guarantee/warrantee was ever provided by the Op to the complainant regarding the working of the tubewell.

7.                                 As per the complainant he had hired the services of the OP after executing a contract and as per the contract the OP would be responsible if the tubewell fails within 12 months but he has failed to produce the same on the case file to authenticate the version taken by him. In the reply the Op has admitted that the work of boring of tubewell was done by it but it does not mean that he was deficient in providing service. It is a matter of common knowledge that besides the work of boring of tubewelk many other equipment such as pipes and driver are required and the Op had specifically mentioned that no warrantee/guarantee of 12 months was ever given to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit has reiterated the version taken by him in his complaint and Sh.Jaswinder Singh has supported the version of the complainant by tendering his separate affidavit Annexure C2 but despite that the complainant has not been able to prove his case because the OP in his reply has specifically submitted that after completion of work upto the satisfaction of the complainant Rs.1 lac were paid to him through cheque, therefore, it was  for the complainant to get the same mechanically examined through an expert and to produce the said report before this Forum but it has not been done so.  He had never not moved any application before this Forum for mechanically examination of the tubewell through an expert by appointment of a local commissioner; therefore, adverse inference is drawn against the complainant. The complainant and Sh.Jaswinder Singh have stated that Rs.1,40,000/- was paid in cash to the OP and Rs.1  lac was given to him through cehque but it is strange that there is nothing on the file in the shape of any receipt/token qua delivery of amount to prove that Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the Op on  specific date. Though the complainant has produced on the file  photo copy of pass book as Annexure C6 but it does not show that amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that oral assertions without any concrete evidence have no value in the eyes of law, therefore, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the complainant has been failed to lead sufficient evidence to prove that the Op was deficient in providing service. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules.  File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 08.09.2017                                                            (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                             (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                        MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                               

 

                                                                                    (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                MEMBER