Haryana

Panchkula

CC/532/2021

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA,ADV - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH ASHOK KUMAR (CARPENTER). - Opp.Party(s)

VIJAY KUMAR

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	532 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	23.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	24.01.2023

 

 

Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Chamber No.79, Lawyers Chambers District Courts, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Sh.Ashok Kumar(Carpenter) SCF No.26-B, Near Chanda Collection, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana, District Mohali, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.

                        Defence of OP already struck off vide order dated 30.05.2022.

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having a chamber no.95 in lawyers chambers located in the complex of District Court, Panchkula and that he contacted the Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as OP) in-connection with renovation of the said chamber, as he(OP) used to deal in the business of construction and carpentry work etc. As per oral agreement between the OP and the complainant, the OP had agreed to complete the renovation work, including wooden work, like fixing of tiles,  false ceiling, table, bookshelf, wooden almirah; paint and polishing work, installation of lights(Electricity work) and as per oral agreement, the OP had undertaken to complete the renovation work including wooden work, fixing of tiles etc. for a total sum of Rs.1,55,000/-; it was assured by the OP to complete the work within a period of 30 days; a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 16.11.2021 by the complainant to the Op, who had started the work but his work from the very beginning was not satisfactory and he(OP) left the work in between without completing the same. It is stated that the OP had caused damages to the walls while removing the already affixed almirah in the chamber. It is also stated that the OP had taken away the said almirah without the consent and permission of the complainant. On 22.11.2021 after the vacation, the complainant visited the chamber and found the almirah missing from the chamber and there upon, the OP was asked to refund his amount but he(op) misbehaved with the complainant. It is stated that due to the non completion of the work by the OP, the complainant has faced inconvenience and had to engage another mason by paying an extra amount, to complete the work. The complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment.  A legal notice was sent to the OP on 27.11.2021 but to no avail. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP has appeared in person on 21.02.2022 to contest the complaint and case was adjourned to 21.03.2022 for filing written statement. On 21.03.2022 Sh.Bhisham Kinger, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP by filing memo of appearance and sought the adjournment for filing written statement and case was adjourned to 15.04.2022. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 18.05.2022 and 30.05.2022 but none appeared on behalf of the OP and ultimately, his defence was struck off by the Commission vide order dated 30.05.2022.

3.             To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                On 10.11.2022, written arguments were filed along with bill dated 30.11.2021 and a handwritten page, which are assigned the  specific mark  as Mark ‘5’ & Mark ‘6’  for the adjudication  of the case in a proper and fair manner. On 22.12.2022 the case was partly heard and during the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted an Affidavit in support of his contention, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint as also in his affidavit Annexure C-A contended that the OP was deficient while rendering services to him qua non completion of the agreed work as per oral agreement. It is contended that the OP had caused damages to the walls while removing the already affixed Almirah. During arguments, our attention has been drawn towards photos(Annexure C-4(colly)) to show that the OP already affixed almirah was removed by OP causing damages to the walls. The complainant also invited our attention towards the bill dated 30.11.2021, whereby the construction material was purchased by him for a sum of Rs.29,055/-. Further, the complainant invited our attention towards a handwritten paper (Mark ‘6’ bearing the signature of one person, namely, Hira Lal Yadav  wherein it is mentioned that he had completed the left out construction work in the chamber of the complainant. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel  contended that  he has got the work completed from Hira Lal Yadav and thus, entitled to the refund of Rs.10,000/- as claimed in the complaint along with other compensation.

6.             The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint as written statement controverting the contentions of the complainant was not filed despite appearance in the court on 21.02.2022. Thus, the contentions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             As per unrebutted contentions of the complainant, the OP was engaged to carry out the renovation work in his chamber  no.95 situated in District Court Panchkula, by paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- out of agreed sum of Rs.1,55,000/-. As per photos placed on record vide Annexure C-4, it is evident that an already affixed almirah had been detached. As per photos(Annexure C-4(colly)) it is observed that the construction material is lying here and there. The complainant  vide his duly sworn affidavit Mark ‘A’ has stated that he had got  the left out work completed in his chamber from anther  carpenter, namely, Hira Lal Yadav  bearing mobile no.9888577484 resident of Baltana District SAS Nagar, Mohali. The factual position as contended in affidavit (Mark ‘A’) of complainant is corroborated by the invoice dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure C-6) whereby the construction material was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.29,255/- from Shri Ram Glass and Plywood. Further, the version of the complainant as contained in his affidavit Mark ‘A’ is corroborated by a handwritten page(Annexure C-8), wherein Hira Lal Yadav has stated that he had started the construction work in the chamber in question on 28.11.2021 and that he had completed the work qua false ceiling, wooden doors, window etc. & that a already affixed Alimarh was found detached causing damages to the walls. In the end, it is also stated that an expenses of Rs.20,000/- would have been saved, if the alimarh had not been detached from its place. The version of the complainant is unrebutted and uncontroverted, thus, we have no option except to conclude that the OP was deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

8.             In view of the fact that the OP neither responded to the notice nor has he opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OP is liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             Coming to the relief, it is found that the complainant had allegedly made the payment of sum of Rs.10,000/- to the OP.  Further, a loss of Rs.20,000/- has been alleged to have been caused to the complainant due to the act and conduct of the OP while detaching the almirah. However, no satisfactory documentary evidence qua the payment of sum of Rs.10,000/- and loss of Rs.20,000/-has been submitted by the complainant. However, the version of the complainant as stated in earlier para of this order is unrebutted and uncontroverted. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered opinion, it would be fair, reasonable and justified to direct the OP to make the payment of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed against the OP with the directions that OP shall make the lump-sum payment of sum of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant qua relief claimed by him.  

10.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 24.01.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal

                                         President

 

 

 

C.C. No.532 of 2021

 

Present:             Complainant in person.

                        Defence of OP already struck off vide order dated 30.05.2022.

                       

                        Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 24.01.2023 for orders.

 

Dated:11.01.2023

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal

                Member                                Member                  President

 

 

 

Present:             Complainant in person.

                        Defence of OP already struck off vide order dated 30.05.2022.

 

 

                 Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OP with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.24.01.2023

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                   Member                      Member               President