Haryana

Ambala

CC/312/2022

SARWAN . - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAVINDER SINGH. - Opp.Party(s)

RISHI GUPTA.

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	312 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	04.08.2022
Date of decision	:	07.02.2024

Sarwan son of late Shri Bhukker Ram aged about 81 years resident of house no.342, Anand Nagar-B, Boh Road, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

Versus

Ravinder Singh son of Shri Ramesh Singh R/o House no.345-A, Vashisht Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Mob no.8708573244.

….…. Opposite Party.

 Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                              Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Rishi Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.                                                                                                                                  Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate counsel for the OP.  

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. the amount of construction and labour charges  alongwith interest @24% P.A.
2. To pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical torture suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.22000/- as cost of litigation.  
382.  

Grant any relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

2.            Brief facts of this case are that the OP approached through his friend Yoginder Singh to the complainant to reconstruct his house bearing no.1342, Anand Nagar-B, Boh Road, Ambala Cantt District Ambala and entered into an agreement with the complainant on 10-2-2021 against sale consideration of Rs.4 lacs. It has been stated that the   complainant as per the said agreement dated 10-2-2021 had paid total amount of Rs.3,35,000/- to the OP till 8-4-2021. After receiving the said huge amount, the OP left the job without completing the construction work and engaged the services of another customer. The OP has not made stairs; doors and chokhat has not been made and fitted; floor work has not been laid; other work like electricity, plumbing work etc. has also not been done by the OP.  The complainant requested the OP many times  to  complete the work as per the agreement dated 10-2-2021 but to no avail, as a result of which, the complainant was forced to get the said pending work done from outside, after making payment of Rs.1.50 lacs.  The complainant also made complaints of the OP before the S.P. Office, Ambala vide application dated 31-5-2021 and also lodged a complaint before C.M. Window but of no avail. Legal Notice dated 5.1.2022, served upon the OP also did not work.  Hence, the present complaint.

3.           Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objection to the effect that the present complaint against him is legally not maintainable in the present form; there is no relation between the parties qua consumer dispute; the OP has not caused any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in discharging his duty in working as a Labour Contractor in the construction of house of the complainant; the complainant has filed the complaint just to put undue influence upon the OP just  to avoid the remaining due amount of Rs.65,000/-; since the dispute if any between the parties is of labour and thus the jurisdiction of this Commission is barred; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts; the complainant has no cause of action against the OP etc. On merits, it has been stated that as per the instructions of the complainant, the OP started the construction of his house as per Agreement dated 10.02.2021 and the work was completed by the OP as fully satisfied by the complainant, yet, the OP was paid total Rs.3,35,000/- out of the settlement amount of Rs.4 lacs. The complainant always promised to make the remaining amount very shortly and thereafter he created scene without any sufficient rhyme or reason out of greed to usurp the hard-earning of the OP. When the OP time and again asked for the remaining amount from the complainant, he always lingered on the same by making false excuses and thereafter, he even refused to return the shuttering materials lying at the site and ultimately sold the shuttering materials of the OP, which was having the cost not less than Rs.40,000/-. The complainant has shown the alleged amount of other expenses amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- just to avoid the payment of the OP. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit of Ravinder Singh son of Shri Ramesh Singh, R/o H.No.345-A, Vashisht Nagar, Ambala Cantt as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP.
5.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.            Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by leaving the construction work in the midway, despite receiving huge amount of Rs.3,35,000/- out of Rs.4 lacs, the OP is deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the complainant had to pay Rs.1.50 lacs from his pocket to get the remaining work completed.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the objections taken in the written reply submitted that the OP has completed all the construction work at the premises of the complainant, yet, he failed to make remaining payment to the OP and has now filed this complaint in order to evade its liability of make remaining payment of Rs.65,000/- to the OP. He further submitted that even the shuttering material amounting to Rs.40,000/- stood sold by the complainant.
8.           It may be stated here that since the fact that the complainant hired the services of the OP for constructing the said house for consideration of Rs.4 lacs out of which he had already paid an amount of Rs.3.35 lacs to the OP, are not in dispute, therefore, the only moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case that the OP had not completed the construction work at the project site and has left the same midway, the complainant has placed on record the photographs C-12 to C-16, perusal of which clearly goes to show that the construction work is still not complete like plaster work is incomplete; wood doors have still not been fitted in the said house; sanitary/sewerage pipes are also not fitted and kept lose; floor work is also not complete; malba is found scattered in the premises. Under these circumstances, in the face of photographs C-12 to C-16, plea taken by the OP that he completed all the work at the premises of the complainant is devoid of merit and stands rejected, especially, when not even a single evidence has been placed on record by the OP to prove that the entire construction work stood completed by him at the premises of the complainant.
9.           It may be stated here that it is the definite case of the complainant that for the said remaining work, he has paid an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs. Complainant has placed on record the bills regarding for the purchase of the material. From the perusal of bills dated 02.05.2021 and 29.04.2021 Annexure C-9 to C-11, it is evident that complainant paid Rs.8,235/-, Rs.14,805/- and Rs.11,120/- (Rs.34,160/-), for the purchase of the material. However, no evidence regarding payment of the labour charges for completion of the pending construction work has been placed on record, by the complainant. Under these circumstances, keeping in view the prevailing labour charges for the skilled and unskilled labour, we are of the opinion that end of justice would be met if the OP be directed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.15,000/-, as labour charges, to the complainant. The OP is thus liable to pay in total a sum of Rs.49,160/- (Rs.34,160/- + Rs.15,000/-), to the complainant for the completion of the work, which the OP had left midway.
10.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP, in the following manner:-  
    1. To pay Rs.49,160/- to the complainant.
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.   

The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President