Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/518/2012

Gurcharan Singh S/o Ramji Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roshan Ali S/o Rashid Ahmed - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                            Complaint No 518  of 2012.

                                                                                            Date of institution: 28.5.2012

                                                                                            Date of decision: 4.11.2015.

Gurcharan Singh son of Shri Ramji Lal, aged 36 years, resident of village Sippionwala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.    

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Roshan Ali son of Shri Rashid Ahmed, R/o Village Tibbi Arraiyan, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                       …opposite party.

Before:            SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                OP already ex-parte.  

                

                

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Gurcharan Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent (hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of loss of material and on account of excess amount of wages charges and further directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs. 11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that in the month of November 2010, the complainant wanted to construct his house at village Sippionwala, and for this purpose he was in search of some skilled Mason (Raj Mistri) for doing the construction work alongwith putting tiles/stones at his house The OP who is a mason by profession approached the complainant and assured him that he is a skilled mason and he will complete the work as per the satisfaction of the complainant. On the assurance of OP, the complainant agreed to it and the whole work was settled at Rs. 1,65,000/- and the work was completed within a period of six months. Thereafter, the OP started work alongwith other labourers and from time to time he received a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/-. The work done by the OP was of very low quality and in a very unprofessional manner and due to bad work the stone tiles etc. put by the OP was not in a proper manner, nor he made an effective drainage system for the draining water through latrine and bathroom, due to which the material amount to Rs. 1,00,000/- became substandard and when he told to the OP that the work done by him is of very low quality and in a  very bad manner, the OP left the work uncompleted in the middle of April 2011. Thereafter, the complainant requested  the OP to complete the work as per his satisfaction but OP refused to accept the just and genuine request of complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant convened a panchayat of respectable persons including Sarver Mistri and Faquir Chand President Union and OP were also called in the Panchayat and after inspecting the house of complainant the panchayat people told the Op that the work done by him at the house of complainant is very low quality and in a unprofessional manner for which he is liable to complete the work as per the satisfaction of the complainant or in the alternative he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of material and Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of excess amount of wages/ labour charges (Rs. 1,62,000-62,000) received by him from the complainant, which he agreed to pay in 5 months. The period of five months have been expired neither the OP refund the aforesaid amount nor he completed the work. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP failed to appear despite service through registered post, hence he was proceeded ex-parte vie order dated 24.7.2012.  

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file carefully and minutely.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant hired the services of OP for constructing work alongwith putting tiles/stones at his house and further for making an effective drainage system for water in respect to latrine and bathroom but the OP done work was very poor and not in a proper manner. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that it was agreed between OPs and complainant that the OP will work as per satisfaction of the complainant but he failed to do so. Moreover, the OP received a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/- from the complainant from time to time and he left the work uncompleted in the middle and there is a great deficiency in service on the part of OP.

7.                     After going through the above noted arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant is not tenable as the complainant totally failed to file any written agreement with the OP and further has not filed any affidavit from near and dear or any labour worker associated with the mason who carried out the work of construction at the residence of the complainant. Further the complainant has totally failed to file any expert report/construction engineer regarding the poor quality of construction work. Even the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence regarding the payment made to the OP and hiring the service of the OP. Further complainant has filed only short affidavit in support of his complaint and not bothered to lead any cogent evidence to prove his case.

8                       Though in the present complaint, the OP has neither appeared nor defended the case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite party.

9                      In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that he has hired any services from the OP or availed any services for consideration. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.  

9                      Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court 4.11.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.