BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.525 of 2014
Date of institution: 25.08.2014
Date of Decision: 13.07.2015
Mukesh Gupta S/o Mohan Lal Gupta R/o H.No. 622, Shiva Enclave, Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi District. Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
Ranjit Singh Ahuja R/o # 87, Harmilap Nagar, Phase-1, Baltana, Near
Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi. District SAS Nagar, Mohali
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Lovedeep sareen, counsel for the complainant.
OP in person.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
1. The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that the Opposite party (for short ‘the OP’) entered into an agreement with the complainant on 08.09.2013 for construction of his house at Plot No. 622 at Shiva Enclave, Zirakpur for total amount of Rs. 12 lacs and the first class construction work has to be completed within 5 months. Despite the fact, the complainant made of all the payment to the OP but the OP did not construction his house within time and not upto the mark. The OP left the following works in the house of the complainant:-
- paint outdoor and indoor incomplete ( only cat done).
- Texture painting not done as per contract.
- Door and windows paint.
- Finishing of main gate.
- Compound steel grill.
- Polish of steel grills on stairs and roof not completed.
- Elevation tile work not completed.
- Sewerage tank covers not completed.
- Wood work not completed.
- Doors, cupboards and windows fitting not completed.
- Electricity work not completed ( partly done)
- Holders of bulb not provided properly.
- Final ragdai and polish of marble still pending.
- Gas GI pipe fitting.
- Water connection in water tank not done.
- Double curtain road in drawing room not provided.
- Puja corner in lobby not provided.
As per the agreement the OP has to construct the wall which is adjoining to the neighbour of the complainant but the OP has not done it for which he has to pay Rs. 13,710/- to his neighbour and for it the OP is liable. Further the OP did not purchased and installed sanitary material which he is bound to do so by the agreement. The complainant has to spend Rs. 24,205/-,Rs. 5601/- for its purchase and Rs. 2500/- for its installation. The OP also did not install iron zaal which is bound to do so by the agreement. The complainant has got installed it at his own cost amounting to Rs. 7,666/-. The OP also did not install elevation titles which he is bound to install as per agreement and complainant has to spent Rs. 1,143/- for it. There is sewerage blocking and short circuit of electricity due to defective workmanship of the OP. The complainant has to bear rent expenses to the tune of Rs. 5,500/- per month for five months i.e. from Aug 2013 to Feb, 2014 due to delay of the construction of the house by the OP. Thus tenancy amount of Rs. 16,500/- is liable to be recovered from the OP. Thus the OP provided deficient services and played unfair trade practice upon the complainant for which he has to be compensated along with litigation expenses.
Lastly the complainant prayed for the acceptance of this complaint along with direction to the OP :-
- to complete the remaining construction work of the house of the complainant as per agreement dated 08.09.2013.
- To pay him an amount of 77,325/- along with interest @ 9% P.A from 01.06.2014 till its actual realization as cost of material and labour.
- To pay him Rs. 56,600/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
- Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit in favour of the complainant.
2. After the service of the notice, the OP filed written version by admitting that he entered into the agreement dated 08.09.2013 with the complainant. He also admitted that construction of the house is to be constructed within five months but delayed due to delay in payment schedule. He further submitted that as per the order dated November, 2014 of this forum, he completed the pending works in the presence of the complainant. He further submitted that he received only Rs. 11,65,000/- instead of total amount of Rs. 12,87,450/- to be paid to him by the complainant. The OP also admitted that he did not construct the rear wall of the house as it was already constructed . The OP also admitted that the labour of the construction of this wall is Rs. 13,710/- but at the same time took the objection that as the rear wall is common wall of the complainant and the neighbour. He further stated that he has constructed (45’x2) walls on both side of the house which cost to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/-. He further states that this cost is to be borne by the complainant as well as him. Therefore, the OP is entitled to recover from the complainant Rs. 51,290/- (Rs. 65,000/ minus Rs. 13,710/-) . All construction items have been purchased by the OP in the presence and within the consent of the complainant and all the receipts are issued in the name of complainant i.e. Sh. Mukesh Gupta and all the receipts are given to the complainant. Hence the OP is not liable to pay any amount as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. The claim of the complainant that OP bound to install iron zaal as per the agreement is denied as the OP is not bound to install any iron zaal as per the agreement dated 08.09.2013. The OP denied specifically that there is no deficiency in sewerage construction and short circuiting of the electricity wires. Therefore, denying deficiency in service and unfair trade practice he has prayed for dismissal of the complainant.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-14.
4. To rebut the allegations of the complainant, the OP tendered the affidavit of Nitin Bansal, its Partner Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file and written arguments filed by them.
6. It is ample clear on record that the parties have entered into an agreement dated 08.09.2013 Ex C-1 for housing construction. The building material and all construction services was provided by the contractor Sh. Ranjit Singh, OP and the complainant was to pay him a total lump sum amount of Rs. 12 lacs for raising A Class construction work at plot No. 622, Shiva Enclave Babat, MC, Zirakpur, Punjab for total lentil area including mumtty . The details of the material and specifications have been clearly mentioned in the agreement. Therefore, the complainant is a consumer and the OP is a service provider. The grievance of the complainant is that as per the agreement, the work was to be completed within 4- 5 months whereas the OP has after receiving Rs. 11.50 lacs has not completed the work within stipulated time and left so many work in complete and, therefore, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
7. The execution of the construction agreement dated 08.09.2013 Ex C-1 is admitted. The payment by cheque by the complainant to the OP to the tune of 11,50,000/- as on 09.01.2014 is admitted. The left over work as mentioned in para No.1 is admitted as during the course of proceedings the OP has offered to complete the work provided the complainant makes the balance payment. Therefore, during the course of proceedings, the OP has undertaken incomplete works and produced the report dated 25.11.2014 along with photographs to show the removal of defects and completion of work. However, the complainant is not still satisfied with the work undertaken during the pendency of the present complaint. As per the complainant report dated 15.01.2015 along with photographs shows that the work undertaken by the OP during the proceedings is not proper as the paint marks unfinished, welding marks are still visible on the gate grills and doors. Wood work not complete, Marble polish not complete, Gas pipe not fitted etc. Therefore, the OP has failed to provide satisfactory and defect free service to the complainant.
8. We are in fully agreement with the contentions of the complainant duly supported by the photographs of unfinished and incomplete work .
9. The act of the OP in not completing the work within the stipulated agreed time frame as per Ex C-1 and further having availed the opportunity to complete the unfinished work during the course of proceedings per-se is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainant has suffered both financial loss and mental agony. Had the OP executed the work in a time frame manner as per agreed time frame i.e. within 4-5 months from the date of execution of the Ex C-1 dated 08.09.2013, the OP would not have to spend rent @ 16500/- for the rented accommodation as he was deprived of the opportunity to shift into his own house in May, 2014 as the same was incomplete. However, the complainant has not produced any rent agreement showing his tenancy before shifting to his own house. Therefore, the benefit of rent claimed in the complaint is not entitled to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
10. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. fifty thousand only) on account of mental agony and deficiency in service.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 13, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
