Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/232

Gurmukh Sngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ram Lal - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Singh Adv.

03 Aug 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:232 dated 16.05.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 03.08.2023.

 

Gurmukh Singh, aged about 50 years son of Sh. Bhinder Singh, resident of Village Ikolahi, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana. Mobile No.94633-24936.                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Ram Lal son of Sh. Sarwan Singh, resident of Village Ikolahi, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                       …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. P.S. Mundi, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the facts of the complaint are that the opposite party being a Contractor, is doing work of construction of houses on contract basis. In the month of October, 2017, the opposite party entered into oral agreement with the complainant to construct his house at the rate of Rs.125/- per sq. feet and agreed to complete the construction work up to 31.03.2018. The opposite party started the construction work on 13.08.2017 and received Rs.3,26,050/- from the complainant from time to time by issuing hand written receipts. The opposite party did not complete the construction work within prescribed period  i.e. up to 31.03.2018 as per the agreement rather stopped the construction work in the month of June 2018 due to which construction work of the house of the complainant is still pending. Moreover, the construction work done by the opposite party is not properly as there are many deficiencies and defect in the construction work. The complainant further stated that he approached the building experts for taking opinion regarding deficiency/defect in the construction work done by the opposite party who inspected the house, took photographs and observed the faults/defect/deficiencies in the house of the complainant, which is reproduced as under:-

i. Photographs show the plaster is leaving the wall when rubbed with finger. This is all caused due to non curing of the walls with water or not missing of cement mortar properly by the contractor during plastering work.

ii. Photographs show the steps of the stair not constructed in proper right angle and not plastered properly.

 iii. Corners of rooms were not found in exactly right angle i.e. @ 90 degree angle.

iv. When the plaster was measured with a plumb bob it was not in properly in vertical position. All the plaster on walls is not found in smooth and fine but done with negligently, roughly by the contractor.

v. The top level of lintel of windows & doors are not in the same level which should be in the same. Sometimes it is found 2" to 3" difference in top level which is dur to negligence of labour contractor.

vi. There are so many cracks in the front parpet near windows on roof and visible at various sides of the building which are shown in the photographs attached. This may happen to a newly constructed house due to poor workmanship of the contractor.

vii. Dampness over walls also damaging the plaster which are also visible in the photographs. viii. Some major cracks have been developed under the grill of parapet. These are spreading day by day as told by the owner of the house.

ix. However the material was the best quality made available by the owner hence there is no any chance to say the material such as cement, sand bricks provided by the owner was not of property quality.

x. The top most slab over the water storage tank was to be casted in the sloping shape as per desire of the owner which was ignored by the contractor.

 

xi. The water storage tank was to be enclosed with brick masonry after filling fine sand and is not done. xii. The wall adjoining the neighbourer side wall is causing dampness due to the gap left by the labour contractor.

xiii. The owner made everything available to the contractor such as water, electricity & building material to his best effort & as demanded by the contractor.

xiv. All the plaster on inside and outside of the house is not in smooth but is uneven. This is due to poor workmanship of the labour contractor.

xv. Gap between chowkhats & walls is seen which is due to not fitting the chowhats framer in proper position.

xvi. The R.C.C. slab of the building is found uneven. A difference of 2-3 inches was found in level.

xvii. The gate pillars and the adjoining boundary wall was not constructed/left by the contractor which was earlier included in the agreement. And this was constructed by the owner at his own cost.

xviii. The water tank was to be surrounded with river sand as per agreement which was not done by the contractor.

The complainant further stated that due to the deficiency/defect done by the opposite party in his house, the following abstract of losses occurred to the complainant:

i. Cement plaster of all the rooms to be removed and applied subsequently.

ii. Cracks which have been developed should be repaired and made good to make the house see as crack free.

iii. Stair of the house to be dismantled and reconstructed.

Due to deficiencies/defects on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered a total loss of 4,90,650/-. The complainant many times approached the opposite party with request to remove the said defect/deficiencies or to pay the damage but to no effect. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.4,90,050/- due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party which the complainant is entitled for. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.04.2019 posted on 01.05.2019 to the opposite party through his counsel but the said notice was returned back to the counsel for the complainant on account of refusal by the opposite party. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for allowing the complaint and to direct the opposite party to pay compensation  of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of financial loss, Rs.2,00,000/- on account of causing mental agony and harassment, Rs.4,90,050/- on account of deficiency in services and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; lack of cause of action; lack of jurisdiction; concealment of material facts by the complainant etc. The opposite party stated that the complainant contacted the opposite party for the construction of his house and the price settled with the parties Rs.125/- per sq. feet. The opposite party had performed his part of contract and total labour for the construction Rs.3,82,116/- and out of which Rs.3,26,050/- was paid by the complainant to him and still Rs.56,066/- remaining towards the complainant which he demanded many times from the complainant but he delayed the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant is working in Police Department and the opposite party made a complaint to the concerned police station as well to SSP, Khanna but no action was taken against the complainant. As such, the present complaint is a counter blast to the application of the opposite party and to avoid payment of the opposite party.  The opposite party further stated that during raising the construction, complainant as well as his architect inspected the work on daily basis and they never raised any objection regarding the work.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The opposite party has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint as well as affidavit Ex. CW2 of Sh. Harcharan Singh, Civil Engineer, Khanna. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of hand written agreement and receipt of payment, Ex. C2 is the copy of assessment report of Harcharan Singh & Associates, Ex. C3 is the copy of legal notice dated 30.04.2019, Ex. C4 is the postal receipt, Ex. C5 is the copy of envelop, Ex. C6 to Ex. C9 are the copies of photographs, Ex. C10 is the copy of site plan and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit Ex. RA of opposite party Sh. Ram Lal along with documents Ex. D1 is the copy application given to SSP, Khanna, Ex. D2 is the copy of hand written agreement and payment receipts, Ex. D3 is the copy of complaint given to SHO, P.S. Sadar, Khanna, Ex. D4 is the copy of statement of Gurmukh Singh with P.S. Sadar, Khanna, Ex. D5 is the copy of statement of Ram Lal with P.S. Sadar, Khanna, Ex. D6 is the copy of report of SHO, P.S. Sadar on the complaint of Lal Singh and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavits and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.        

6.                Admittedly, the opposite party, a building contractor was engaged by the complainant for the construction of his house in October 2017 @ Rs.125/- per sq. feet as labour charges and calculated total amount to the tune of Rs.3,82,116/-, out of which Rs.3,26,050/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. So a sum of Rs.56,066/- was due against the complainant. There was no written agreement between the parties with regard to the manner according to which the construction work was to be executed. The complainant has alleged the defects in the construction work and availed the services of one Harcharan Singh, Civil Engineer of M/s. Harcharan Singh & Associates and got the construction work inspected from him. On 23.04.2019, the Civil Engineer compiled his assessment report and pointed out 18 deficiencies/defects with regard to various aspects of the construction work as detailed hereinbefore in para No.1 of the judgment. He has further estimated the total expenses to be Rs.4,90,050/- for remedial of the alleged defects by way of reconstruction or repairs. It is pertinent to mention that the said survey was conducted in the absence of the opposite party.

7.                Every residential house is constructed in phased manner and it has different stages starting from laying of foundations, raising of walls, putting of beams, lintel and completion of super structure, roof coating, plumbering, electric work etc., thereafter, the interior and exterior designing etc. are to be carried out as per requirement and budget of the owner. Until and unless one stage is completed, the work of next stage cannot be carried out. A vigilant land owner/house owner is always quick to pick holes in the quality of construction on each stage of the construction. At the same time, a prudent civil contractor will also rectify the deficiency/defect so pointed out by the land owner/house owner there and then before embarking upon the next stage of the construction. In this way, the acts of both house owner and the contractor not only saves the time and energy but also saves cost of the project. The assessment report of surveyor Harcharan Singh has enlisted the alleged defects/deficiencies which could have been remedied during each stage of the construction work. It is categoric stand of the opposite party that the complainant as well his architect regularly visited and inspected the construction work and never raised any objection regarding any deficiency in work. Further the complainant was required to produce the site plan duty approved and sanctioned by local authorities so that it could have been examined by this Commission to arrive at conclusion qua alleged defects and deficiencies in the construction work. The vital piece of evidence has been withheld by the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  Even the complainant has not carried out the rectification or reconstruction or repair work from other source up till now has not incurred any extra cost. So the opposite party cannot be burdened with the estimated alleged loss which the complainant has never suffered.

8.                The counsel for the opposite party contended that the present complaint is malafide and a counter blast to the complaint filed by the opposite party before the police but the counsel for the complainant refuted the same.

9.                Perusal of documents shows that on 15.12.2018, the opposite party filed a complaint No.642-D Ex. D3 to the SHO, P.S. Sadar, Khanna against the complainant for usurping his balance labour charges. During the pendency of this inquiry, the complainant on 23.04.2019 obtained the report of Civil Engineer, sent legal notice on 01.05.2019 and filed the present complaint on 16.05.2019. It appears that the tactics of the complainant worked to his advantage and he was able to scuttle the findings of inquiry.  The complainant was fully aware of the fact that he has not paid the entire labour charges to the opposite party and this fact was concealed by him in his complaint as well as in the affidavit tendered by the complainant. The complainant is still retaining the said amount unjustifiably. As such, the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission. Since the complainant himself is guilty of concealment of facts  and moreover, has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by any cogent and convincing evidence.

10.              As a sequel of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Gurmukh Singh Vs Lal Singh                                        CC/19/232

Present:       Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. P.S. Mundi, Advocate for OP.

         

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.08.2023.

Gobind Ram.