Jagir Singh filed a consumer case on 24 Apr 2018 against Sandeep Kumar in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/112/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Apr 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA
Complaint case no. : 112 of 2017
Date of Institution : 18.04.2017
Date of decision : 24.04.2018
Jagir Singh son of Shri Gurdial Singh, resident of VPO Panjokhra, Tehsil and District Ambala.
……. Complainant.
Vs.
Sandeep Kumar @ Gola Son of Shri Sher Singh, resident of village and post office Panjokhera, Tehsil and District Ambala.
….….Opposite Parties.
Before: Sh. D.N. Arora, President.
Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present: Sh. Bhajan Singh Behgal, counsel for the complainant.
OP proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 12.06.2017.
ORDER:
In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that in the year July,2015 the complainant ire/engage the OP for the construction of his one room @ Rs. 130/- per sq.feet. The OP agreed for the construction of one room on this rate and started the construction work of the complainant. As per the construction, the complainant paid the entire amount to the OP after the completion of the work. Now, the complainant notes that the projection work which was made by the OP has been collapse, moreover, there is a leakage in the linter put by the OP upon the roof of the room, which cause the damage to the POP work made by the complainant. The OP have not done the construction work in a proper way, which caused the damage to whole of the building. The complainant approaches a qualified Engineer to visit the spot and inspect the entire building and after inspection, he made a detail report and held that the entire room has to be remove and re-construction is required. The reports clearly pointed out that the OP commit negligence in the construction of the room and thereby cause monetary loss to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a Regd. AD legal notice dated 15.12.2016 upon the OP. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Registered notices issued to Op but none has turned up on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.06.2017.
3. To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavits as Annexure C-X & C-Y with documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. Ops were proceeded ex parte v.o.d. 12.06.2017.
4. We have gone through the pleading of the complainant and he has alleged that the complainant has engaged the OP for construction of one room and he further alleged that the complainant had paid to the entire amount after completion of the work. The grievance of the complainant that after completion of the project work by the OP, there was a leakage in the linter put by the OP upon the roof of the room which caused damage to the POP work made by the complainant and he further alleged that the OP has not done the work up to mark.
5. To prove this the above said version, the complainant is duty bound to file the application under Section 13(1)(c) to verifying the facts whether the construction work was done by the OP is inferior quality or not. Mere filing the affidavits as well as notice given to the OP are not enough to prove his case. The complainant also failed to produce any report of the any engineer regarding status of the work. In view of the above discussion, the complainant failed to prove his case by way of leading the cogent evidence. Therefore, we have no option to dismiss the complaint for want of the evidence and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
Announced on:24.04.2018
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(PUSHPENDER KUMAR) (ANAMIKA GUPTA) (D.N. ARORA)
Member Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.