Complainant Narinder Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite party U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite party either to pay compensation on account of loss suffered by him to the tune of Rs.15 lacs or to provide all the material and again raise construction of the roof of the Hall. Opposite party be further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to him, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he is owner in possession of the area measuring 3600 Square Feet which was earlier lying vacant. He wants to construct Shed of 60' x 60' over the abovesaid site. The opposite party is Mason and he used to take contracts of construction of Building. He approached to the opposite party for construction of Shed of 60' x 60'. The contract was made between the parties and according to contract he has provided best quality of material to the opposite party such like Bricks, Sand, Cement, Concrete etc. The opposite party has raised construction over the area of 3600 Square Feet. The Shed i.e. construction raised by the opposite party is fully shown and the said construction was raised by the opposite party in the month of December 2015 and January 2016. The construction was in the nature of Hall and Basement Room. To his utter surprise, after passing few months, the RCC Slab of Hall having measurement 60' x 60' and Beams were crumbled and it have fallen down which is dangerous for the human being. He approached to the opposite party number of times and complained regarding the bad construction being done by him and have requested the opposite party to pay compensation to him and also to provide all the material and again raise the construction of the roof of the Hall but the opposite party ultimately refused to admit his claim. This act of the opposite party amounts to clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party who appeared through his counsel and filed his written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint,  this Ld.Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the complainant has filed the present false complaint by concocting a false story, and dragged the opposite party in false litigation as such the complainant is liable to be burdened with special costs. On merits, it was submitted that there is no any kind of defect or lack in the entire RCC Slab or beams and the hall is fit for human habitation and the complainant is using the same. But the complainant has not paid the entire costs of labour to the respondent and now filed the present suit with sole motive to avoid payment of balance payment payable to the respondent. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C2 and  of Parshotam Lal Ex.C-1 alongwith other documents Ex.C3 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

5.      Satnam Singh opposite party has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, of Bikram Singh Ex.OP-2 and of Gurinder Singh Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.        We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally acceptable statutory merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the C P Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find neither the complainant nor the opposite party has produced any agreement/written contract for carried out construction work for 60’ X 60’ Hall-Roof RCC Lintel but both do agree to the carried out construction work.

7.       We further find from the documents as submitted by both the sides that the OP Satnam Singh has never been a registered contractor but a known and experienced mason and upon whom the complainant had relied upon to get ‘construction work’ executed but under his own self-supervision. Thus, we observe that the executed ‘construction’ has been a joint venture of both the complainant and the opposite party mason both advising each-other on general as well as technical aspects for which none was sufficiently trained/experienced etc. However, it is not evident/known as to how the construction of 60’ X 60’ roof-project was undertaken without professional guidance sans provision of columns and beams etc. The OP mason has successfully proved that he advised of ‘pillars’ and has even shown their initialization at site to the ‘ Local commission’ but the complainant decided to go otherwise without pillars etc. Under the circumstances, we cannot hold the OP mason responsible/liable for the probable-loss likely to incur on account of weak construction etc and all the more at the face of his un-rebutted allegation of non-payment of his labor-charges etc in full and as per the mutually understanding/as agreed upon. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not see any actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with no orders as to the costs etc.

9.        Copy of the orders be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record. 

      (Naveen Puri)

                                                                              President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                            (Jagdeep Kaur)

December 01,2017.                                                      Member               

*MK*