BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : 32

Date of Institution : 3.2.2010

Date of Decision : 21.4.2010

Gurjant Singh s/o Karnail Singh r/o Vill. Rori Kapura, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Ratan Singla, Proprietor of Rattan Bricks Kiln, Bishnadi Road, In front of Petrol Pump, Jaitu, Faridkot.

2. Vicky Singla, Proprietor Rattan Bricks Kiln, Bishnadi Road, In front of Petrol Pump, Jaitu, Faridkot.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Smt. D.K. Khosa Member

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. Rajinder Singh counsel for the complainant.

Opposite parties exparte.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint for directing the opposite parties to deliver bricks Number One Quality as agreed between him and opposite parties and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony besides payment of Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he belongs to SC Category and living below the poverty line and Government of Punjab granted Rs. 35,000/- to him to construct the room. As per instructions of Panchayat Secretary he approached the opposite parties for getting bricks for the construction. It was agreed between the complainant and the opposite parties that No. 1 quality of bricks will be sold to him for consideration of Rs. 2,900/- for 1000 bricks including the expenses for lifting at the place indicated by the complainant. He paid Rs. 14,500/- to the opposite parties for five thousand bricks and they delivered 5000 bricks at the residence of the complainant. At that time he was not present in his house. On coming to home he same to know that the bricks were No. 2 quality while he had paid for No. 1 quality. He approached the opposite parties for deficiency of services but they did not pay any heed towards his demand and flatly refused to admit his claim rather abused him in filthy language. It is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,500/-. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. The summons sent to the opposite parties through RC received back with the report of refusal, so the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte by this Forum vide order dated 25.3.2010.

5. The complainant tendered in exparte evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of SC Certificate Ex.C-2, copy of voucher dated 17.12.2009 Ex.C-3, copies of receipts Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, photographs Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.-

7. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complainant paid Rs. 14,500/- to the opposite parties for supply of 5000 bricks of No. 1 quality at destination including transportation expenses. However, opposite parties delivered bricks at his residence in his absence of No. 2 quality. When he approached to the opposite parties for supply of No. 1 quality of bricks replacing the already delivered lot, they refused to accede to his request, rather abused him in filthy language. In these circumstances, the opposite parties are guilty of adopting unfair trade practice and resorting to deficiency in providing the services. So, complainant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony, harassment and a sum of Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses. In support of his contention he has heavily relied upon statement of complainant by way of affidavit Ex.C-1, schedule caste certificate Ex.C-2, bank receipt Ex.C-3 and receipts issued by the opposite parties for Rs. 2500/- each Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and photographs of bricks Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

8. We have given a considerable thought to the aforesaid contentions in the light of the evidence on record and have noted that in the head of the complaint a direction has been sought for the opposite parties to deliver bricks of No. 1 quality as agreed to in between the complainant and the opposite parties besides seeking compensation and litigation expenses. However, in the whole of the complaint the relief of delivery of bricks has not been sought. It has not been disclosed even if the sub standard bricks are lying unused with the complainant or the same have been utilized by him in construction of his house. The record produced and proved on file is insufficient to support the stand of the complainant as no material except the photographs Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 has been brought on record to prove that the bricks supplied by the opposite parties were not of the No. 1 quality. No mason or any expert has been examined to prove that the bricks supplied to the complainant were not of No. 1 quality but were of No. 2 quality. Photographs Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 brought on record by themselves are not sufficient to distinguish how the bricks shown therein are inferior to bricks of No. 1 quality. No relief for replacement of the bricks supplied to the complainant has been sought nor there is sufficient evidence to prove harassment on account of this, the relief of compensation and litigation expenses also cannot be granted. In this view of the matter, the present complaint is found to be meritless and as such the same is dismissed. In the peculiar set of circumstances no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 21.4.2010

Member Member President

(Dr. H.L. Mittal) (D.K. Khosa) (Ashok Kumar)