Punjab

Faridkot

CC/20/11

Babu Ram Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ravi Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjit Singh

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                11 of 2020

Date of Institution:     14.01.2020

 Date of Decision :      25.04.2023

 

1. Babu Ram Bansal aged about 67 years son of Siri Ram;
2. Viran Devi aged about 75 years wife of Babu Ram Bansal son of Siri Ram;

Both residents of Street No. 2/3, Hira Singh Nagar, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Ravi Kumar son of Prem Nath resident of Ward No.16, FCI Godown, Shanti Nagar, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

                                 .......Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:    Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Ranjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Jatinder Bansal, Ld Counsel for  OP,

 

* * * * * * * * * *

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

 

ORDER

(Priti Malhotra, President)

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.70,000/-as per agreement and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that complainants wanted to dismantle their house and for this purpose, they contacted OP. OP agreed to pay Rs.75,000/-for dismantling their house and for taking rubble of said house. In this regard, contract dated 19.07.2019 was executed between parties in the presence of witnesses Sandeep Kumar and Raj Kumar and said contract was valid for the period from 30.07.2019 to 29.08.2019. At the time of execution of contract, OP gave Rs.5000/-to complainants. As per agreement, it was agreed between the parties that OP would pay Rs.35,000/- prior to 30.07.2019 i.e before dismantling and remaining amount would be paid by OP to complainants on 15.08.2019 after completion of dismantling and it would lift the rubble on completion of this process and after expiry of 15.08.2019, OP would not be entitled to pick up any rubble from said

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

place. It is submitted that as per terms and conditions of said agreement, complainants handed over their house to OP for dismantling the same prior to 30.07.2019, but OP did not make payment of Rs.35,000/-to complainant making lame excuses and assured to pay the first instalment of Rs.35,000/-with few days, but OP did not pay any amount to complainants. On 15.08.2019, when complainants demanded entire amount of Rs.70,000/-from OP, it again made excuses and taking benefit of their old age, OP took whole rubble of their house without making any payment. After that complainants made several requests to OP to make payment of their amount, but OP flatly refused to make any payment, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. All this has caused harassment and mental agony to complainants, for which they have prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. Complainants have prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  instant complaint.

3                                            The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.01.2020, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

4                                           OP filed reply through counsel wherein they have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong, incorrect and asserted that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable as complainants do not fall under the definition of consumer. Agreement between the parties is a commercial transaction and complainants have not paid any penny to answering OP for dismantling the said house. Complicated questions of law and facts are involved in present complaint that require voluminous evidence and it is a gross misuse of process of law. No cause of action arises against OP and complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainants have concealed the material facts and made mis-statement and have filed the present complaint to extract money from him. All the allegations levelled in complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious and therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, OP has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. it is further averred that answering OP had no knowledge that house in question is owned by complainant no.2, rather complainant no.1 came to him claiming that he is the owner of said house.  Complainant no. 1 agreed to sell rubble of ruined house for a sum of Rs.75,000/- and answering OP did not demand any amount for dismantling the

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

said house. Deal was finalized in the presence of Sadeep Kumar who was known to both parties and OP paid Rs.5000/-to complainant at the time said deal, but complainant did not give any receipt for said amount. OP started dismantling the said house and as agreed, paid Rs.35,000/-to complainant, but no receipt was given by complainant. In August, 2019, sewerage work started in the work and it was not possible to collect rubble from the house. In September, 2019 complainant no.1 started demand remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-, to which OP told that most of bricks, wooden material, doors, windows lying in said house, have not been collected by OP. There arose dispute between the parties which was resolved in the presence of Sandeep Kumar and Raj Kumar with result that remaining consideration would be paid to complainant by OP and in turn complainant would allow him to pick up the remaining material. Accordingly, OP paid the remaining amount to complainant, but thereafter, complainant refused to allow him to collect the material. complainant approached said Sandeep Kumar, but complainant was adamant and did not allow him to lift the material from dismantled house and now, filed the present complaint to grab more money from him and to harass him. OP has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on his part and complainant has filed the present

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

complaint only to gain money from him. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 5                                         Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                        Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravi Kumar as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-7 and thereafter, closed the same.

7                                              We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record by respective parties.

8                                             From the careful perusal of the record it is observed that case of the complainants is that in order to get his old house dismantled, complainants approached OP and OP agreed to pay Rs.75,000/-for dismantling their house and for taking rubble of said house. Sandeep Kumar and Raj Kumar were witness to said contract and it was valid from 30.07.2019 to 29.08.2019. At the time of contract, OP gave Rs.5000/-to complainants. It was

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

agreed between the parties that OP would pay Rs.35,000/- prior to 30.07.2019 i.e before dismantling and remaining amount was to be paid on 15.08.2019 after completion of dismantling and after expiry of 15.08.2019, OP would not be entitled to pick up any rubble from said place. It is alleged that OP started dismantling the house but did not make payment of Rs.35,000/-on lame excuses. On 15.08.2019, when complainants demanded entire amount of Rs.70,000/-from OP, it again started lingering on the matter, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, plea taken by OP is that they did not charge any amount for dismantling the said house. As per OP, he has paid entire amount of Rs.75,000/-to complainant no. 1, in the presence of witnesses to contract, but even then, complainant no. 1 has not allowed him to collect all waste articles like windows, doors and other rubble from that place. OP has strongly opposed the allegations of complainants being wrong and incorrect and requested that dispute between the parties is not a consumer dispute and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                      Copy of agreement placed on record by complainant seems to be a deal for commercial transaction. Nowhere from the pleadings of

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

complainants, it is made out that complainants do fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. No consideration for availing services of Opposite Party for dismantling the said house is shown to be paid by complainants, which is a paramount consideration to bring the complainants covered under the definition of ‘consumer’. As per Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 definition of term consumer is as under:

“Any person who”

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.

 

10                                       From the above discussion and after going through all affidavits and documents placed on record by respective parties,

‘CC No.11 of 2021’

it is made out that complainant has miserably failed to prove that he is consumer of Opposite Party and thus, no consumer dispute is made out. Complainant is at liberty to seek relief regarding his grievance by approaching the appropriate court of law. Complaint case in hand is hereby dismissed. In peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to the costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Commission

Dated : 25.04.2023

(Vishav Kantt Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)          (Priti Malhotra)

Member                         Member                 President