DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.472 of 14-10-2010

Decided on 22-02-2011

Gurpreet Singh, aged about 38 years, son of Late. Sh.Ajaib Singh son of Sh. Piara Singh, resident of

 H.No.15458, Gali No.2-B, Mata G.V.Nagar, Bathinda.

.......Complainant

Versus

Ramdev Contractor, resident of Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Gali No.10/10, Bathinda, Mobile No.94641-

53543.

......Opposite party

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

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.S.S.Dhillon, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.K.S.Brar, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant contacted with the opposite party to build his house and an agreement was done between the parties that the opposite party will take Rs.65/- per sq. feet and the work of the house would be completed within a period of three months. There was some work which was to be preformed on daily wages by the opposite party. After about a lapse of four months, the work of the house of the complainant has not been completed, so far and the opposite party left the work incomplete. The complainant had already paid Rs.85,000/- to the opposite party. All the construction work is pending like plaster work, affixing of chaugaths, grils etc. The contractor had not completed the construction work within the period of 3 months. The Kitchen of the house of the complainant has also not made in the correct direction. All the material is laying in the street. The complainant had to get his work completed from some other Masson. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

2. The opposite party filed its written statement and pleaded that he does masonary work on contract basis. He was engaged by the complainant for construction of his house on the contractual basis after demolishing the old one and the area was measured as 1250 sq.ft. after getting demolishing/breaking the old construction of his house with the help of labourers. The complainant had agreed to make the payment of demolition/breaking work of his house separately to him and to pay the amount of any other work separately which would be beyond 1250 sq.ft. The opposite party worked in the house of the complainant from 06.06.2010 to 04.10.2010 i.e. about 90 days of labour and demolished/broke the old construction of his house than completed the entire construction of the new house. The construction work was calculated as 1250 sq.ft. besides this, the complainant has also got constructed a new stair care, tainki and bathroom on the roof. The labour and amount of the construction work etc. @ Rs.85/- per sq. ft. of 1250 sq.ft. calculated upto Rs.1,06,250/- was agreed. The labour/amount of demolition/breaking of old construction comes to the tune of Rs.36,450/- and the labour of a new stair care, tainki and bathroom comes to the tune of Rs.27,550/-. In this way, the total labour work/masonry work/demolition work cost Rs.1,70,250/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 75,000/- to the opposite party and a sum of Rs.95,250/- is balance to the complainant. The complainant flatly refused to pay the same to the opposite party. On 21.10.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., the opposite party alongwith some labour had went to the complainant and requested him to pay the said balance amount of his labour and to get his shuttering material from his house but the complainant refused to make the payment of his balance amount rather he insulted and abused him and did not allow him to take his shuttering material from his house. The complainant kept with him some shuttering material consisting of 50 wooden planks, 5 wooden poles, 4 garders, 2 earthen bowls belonging to the opposite party.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant has submitted that he had entered in an agreement with the opposite party for the construction of his house @ Rs.65/- per sq. ft. and to complete the house within 3 months. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has left the work in between and has not completed the construction of his house within stipulated period as the construction of his house is not completed, he has to live in rented house and to pay Rs.7,000/- as rent. The opposite party admitted that he had entered into an agreement to construct the house but no written agreement has taken place between them. The opposite party was agreed to get the amount @ Rs.85/- per sq. ft. and the construction work comes to the tune of 1250 sq.ft. The complainant has nowhere mentioned in his complaint that he had engaged the opposite party to demolish his old house than to construct the new house. The opposite party alongwith his labourer demolished his old house, constructed new house and did many work which has not been included in an agreement like construction of stair, tainki and bathroom etc. The complainant had spent 90 days in demolishing the old house; broke the old construction of his old house and completed entire construction work of his house. The amount which the opposite party has to take from the complainant on account of demolishing of the old house, the construction of new house and construction of stair, tainki and bathroom comes to the tune of Rs.1,70,250/-. The complainant had paid Rs.75,000/- only and the opposite party has to pay Rs.95,250/-more. The complainant had submitted that the complainant is a illiterate person and to prove his version, had placed on file various documents, he has produced Ex.C-4 as an agreement and Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 receipts signed by Ram Dev.

6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the opposite party i.e. Ram Dev Contractor is an illiterate person. He cannot sign, he just put thumb impression on the documents. A perusal of documents placed on file Ex.R-10 to Ex.R-14 shows that the Contractor Ram Dev is an illiterate person. To corroborate his version, the opposite party has also produced of file Ex.R-15, the photocopy of registered sale deed which also shows the thumb impression of the opposite party. From there the documents it is clearly depicted that Ram Dev is an illiterate person and to garb his money, the complainant has filed the frivolous complaint. Hence, this complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’

Pronounced in open Forum

22-02-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Dr. Phulinder Preet)

Member

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member