DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Smt. Sheela Devi, wife of Late Sh. Vidhi Chand son of Late Sh. Dilbagh Rai, resident of H.No. 920, LIC colony, Ward No.4, Mundi Kharar, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Pb).

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

Des Raj, son of Sh. Sarwan Kumar, resident of H.No. 3128/2, Sector 41-D, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      None for the Complainant.

Sh. Des Raj, OP in person.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that the Complainant hired the services of the OP and entered into an agreement on 2.8.2007, with the OP, who is a Contractor, for modification & construction of building of the first and second floor of her existing premises. The detailed agreement for the said purpose was executed and the same is at Annexure C-2, wherein it is clearly mentioned in Para No. 7 that the construction on the said premises would be started on 2.8.2007 and was to be completed in all respect by 1.11.2007.  A total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was agreed upon, which included the cost of material, fixtures, woodworks, bath and kitchen fittings, complete plastering of the masonry work and painting of the entire building. The Complainant paid Rs.6,00,000/-, which was duly received by the OP. The said payment was paid during the period 2.8.2007, till 7.2.2008, on 08 different occasions.

                The Complainant has alleged that the OP failed to adhere to the time duration and the deadline, as agreed upon, vide their agreement; whereas, the OP had received the entire amount of consideration, but the promised work still remains to be completed. The Complainant had annexed a number of documents, along with photographs of the premises, in order to show the incomplete work. The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

                The Complainant has also disclosed that in order to redress her grievances she had moved a complaint in writing to SHO, Thana City Kharar, in the month of June, 2008, alleging cheating, fraud and misappropriation of funds and non-fulfillment of the agreement, entered between the two, requesting to initiate criminal proceedings against the OP. The same is annexed as Annexure C-28.  The Complainant has alleged that the police authorities had failed to take cognizance of the said complaint.

                The Complainant has, now, moved this Forum for seeking relief of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and mental agony, and refund of Rs.6,00,000/-, along with interest @18% p.a., till its realization. The Complainant has further, prayed for cost of litigation of Rs.11,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/-.

2.              On notice, OP has filed their version/ written statement and has contested the claim of the complainant by raising preliminary objections to the present complaint stating that the present complaint is not maintainable, as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter. The OP has further states that the Complainant ought to have approached the Hon’ble Workmen’s Compensation Commission for Redressal of her grievances, as the OP is a Contractor and the Complainant had got the work done from him. The OP further states that the matter requires detailed evidence. Hence, the same cannot be decided through summary procedure.  

                On merits, OP has categorically denied the allegations of the Complainant by stating that OP has done the work on the asking of the Complainant but the allegations, as mentioned in the complaint, do not hold ground, as he had only received Rs.6.00 lacs, till date; whereas, the remaining amount of Rs.1.00 lac is still outstanding against the Complainant. The OP has also denied the payment of Rs.50,000/-, on 7.2.2008, in addition to the amount, duly received by him, under his signatures.

                The OP has further stated that he is himself aggrieved of the acts of the Complainant, through which a complaint was submitted with the SSP, Mohali, on 22.2.2008, against the OP, alleging cheating, fraud and misappropriation; whereas, all the payments received by the OP were duly signed by him in person. Finally, claiming that the matter pertains to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, and the same cannot be tried through the summary procedure of this Forum, the OP prays for the dismissal of the present complaint, with costs.  

3.              Parties led their respective evidences.

4.              As the Complainant failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 15.11.2011, the arguments of the OP were heard. Hence, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 15.11.2011.

5.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties, we are of the following view:-

[i]     As the present complaint pertains to the year 2009 and since 11.2.2010, the present complaint is being repeatedly adjourned for placing of evidence on behalf of the Complainant, as well as arguments. But, till date, the Complainant has failed to adduce any evidence in support of the contentions of the present complaint. It is also noticed from the zimni orders on record that the Complainant failed to appear in person, nor the original counsel was regular in appearing before this Forum.   

[ii]    The police complaint of June, 2008 (Annex.C-28) moved by the Complainant through which the Complainant had alleged cheating, fraud and misappropriation of funds and non-fulfillment of the agreement. We feel that as the above said matters belong to either a Criminal Court or a Civil Court, through which suit for specific performance of the present contract could be enforced against the OP. Hence, we find no merit in moving ahead with the present complaint, as the above said matters require a detailed evidence, and the same cannot be decided through the summary procedure of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.              In the light of above observations, we do not find any merit in the present complaint as the complainant has failed to prove her case convincingly. Hence, we dismiss the present complaint with out costs. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.

6.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29^th November 2011.                                                                   

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER