| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 255 of 5.7.2017 Decided on: 27.4.2018 Ranjit Singh, aged 60 years, s/o S.Aasa Singh, r/o Village Kheri Fatta, Tehsil Samana, Post office Danthal, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Sewa Singh s/o Ajit Singh R/o Village Chaunhat ,Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Ranjit Singh, complainant in person. Sh.Gurdhian Singh,Advocate, with Sh.Sewa Singh/Opposite party ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - In brief , the case of the complainant is that he availed the services of the OP for the construction of his house and gave the contract for the construction of the same to the OP @ Rs.110/- per sq. feet and the said rate would cover the construction of the water tank, sewerage-tank, tile terracing, outer wall, flooring marble fixing; plastering of stairs, roof plastering and completion of the whole kothi. Thus, the total cost of constructing the area of 2647 Sq.feet @ Rs.110/- came out to Rs.2,91,170/-. The complainant made a payment of Rs.10,000/- as advance payment for starting the work. The complainant has given the details of the payments made by him to the OP , date wise from time to time, in para no.3 of the complaint. It is averred that the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.2,98,450/- to the OP, but the OP did not complete the work. The work to the tune of Rs.60,000/- is still pending to be done. Complainant requested the OP time and again to complete the work but to no use. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment, mental agony and also suffered monetary loss at the hands of the OP. Ultimately, he approached this Forum Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed its reply to the complaint. After denying all the allegations made in the complaint against the OP, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith copy of document,Exs.C1&C2 and closed the evidence.
The ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of the OP and closed the evidence . - We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OP and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The grievance of the complainant is that he availed the services of the OP for the construction of his house and gave the contract for the construction of the same to the OP @ Rs.110/- per square feet, whereas the stand of the OP is that he did not undertake any contract for construction of the house of the complainant. Though the complainant has alleged that he gave the contract for the construction of his house to OP, but the complainant has failed to produce any document on record which may show that he ever entered into any agreement with the OP. No receipt regarding the payment made by the complainant to the Op has been placed on record. Today, during the course of arguments also, the Op altogether denied the fact that he ever took the contract of constructing the house of the complainant. Thus, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant ever entered into any agreement for the construction of his house with the OP and also any documentary evidence to show any payment made by the complainant to the OP, it cannot be said that the complainant ever availed the services of the OP. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED: 27.4.2018 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
