Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/431/2020

Preeti Devi W/o Prem dayal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shaukat Ali Contractor - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

31 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2020

Date of Instt.:17.12.2020

Date of Decision:31.08.2021

 

Preeti Devi wife of Sh.Prem Dayal resident of village and Post office Dudhala District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                              Versus

 

Shaukat Ali Contractor, son of Sh.Mehboob resident of village and post office Dudhala Thanesar District Kurukshetra.

                .…Opposite party.

 

                   Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

Present:     Sh.Shekhar Thakur  Advocate for the complainant.

                Opposite Party ex-parte.

ORDER

                   This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Preeti Devi against  Shaukat Ali.- the opposite party.

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that the  OP is a work contractor  who provides the services of constructions in need and similarly the complainant who is native villager of OP and knew about the OP regarding work of construction, met him on 3.12.2019 and told the  OP about her requirement of construction of Double Story building alongwith simple floor, all four side plaster work at village Dudhala and as per mutual  understanding the cost of work of construction was agreed about Rs.2,00,000/- as  Labour charges for constructing the whole work.  The OP commenced the work since 4.12.2019 and work of laying plinth and foundation was completed till 9.1.2020 and the work has been stopped during the phase of 9.1.2020 to 12.6.2020 as per mutual understanding of complainant with the OP due to non passing of the loan from concerned bank and in this period, the OP worked for another persons who required his services of construction.  The work of construction was resumed from 13.6.2020 and the OP gave very poor and sub standard construction services regarding laying the structure of rooms, lanterns and plaster work and the defect in the construction of the house building can be summarized as below.

i)      The OP used improper formations of the Iron Road (Saria) instead of proper Beam work above the door and windows of ground floor, which adversely affected the whole building strength of the house building of the complainant.

ii)      That the OP failed to lay down the whole structure of the building as per given map, as the OP has laid down the length of lantern of different measurement of both sides, as at one side it is 4 &1/2 inch whereas on the another side it was 2 & ½ inch, which invariably affected the whole look of lantern.

iii)     That the OP while laying the structure of the ladders at house, it made one stop very bend than other step.

iv)     That the OP has not made the outer pillars with proper designs as iron rode is coming out of pillars.

v)     That the OP has constructed the bathroom at improper formations at length.

vi)     That further when the construction has not been completed till the date of 10.9.2020, the OP left the work of construction at incomplete stage and during that time, the complainant has already paid him
Rs.1,68,870/- as per her book of accounts on various dates and qua completion of construction work of house, she moved a complaint to the SHO, P.S.Sadar Thanesar regarding leaving the work by OP at incomplete stage and during the proceedings of such complaint, it was agreed between the complainant and OP that the complainant either  receive difference if cost of remaining  came less than the remaining outstanding amount or would pay the amount if the remaining work cost came extra than the remaining paid amount.  The complainant got her work done from Sunil Kumar Messon, Dinesh Messon, Rinku Majdoor, Vikas Majdoor, Ritik Mazdoor, who charged about Rs.62700/- and the OP was required to pay Rs.31570/- back to the complainant. The complainant  paid Rs.1,68,780/- to the OP and she paid Rs.62700/- to the other labour and thus the complainant had paid  to pay Rs.31570/- extra amount due to deficiency in services on the part of the OP besides suffering of mental agony and pain. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OP and prayed that the OP be directed to pay Rs.31570/- besides the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith  litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OP who failed to appear and contest the case despite due service. Therefore, OP was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 22.02.2021.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed his evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the material available on the case file.

 

6.             In this case, the complainant demanded compensation regarding poor  services of construction of the house of the complainant by the OP and refund of Rs.31570/- which was paid extra than the agreed amount of Rs.1,68,780/-  by the complainant to other Meson for completion of her house. However, the matter was compromised in the Police Station, so there is no new cause of action to decide.  In his arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that they have not compromised about all things but in the compromise Ex.C-5 it is mentioned that there is no regret between the parties.  A perusal of the file shows that the complainant had given an application to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Thanesar regarding not completing her house by the OP and about the threates to her husband and thereafter the matter was compromised between the parties. The complainant has also tendered copy of compromise Ex.C-5 which has been moved by the complainant to the SHO, Sadar Police Station, Thanesar regarding controversy in question. In the said compromise the complainant has stated that they have compromised the matter and now there is no regret between the parties and her application may kindly be consigned. The compromise Ex.C-5 is also signed by the present OP-Saukat Ali and the complainant Preeti Devi. As the parties have already compromised the matter, therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of the OP.

 7.                   In view of our aforementioned findings and observations, we find no merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:

Dated 31.08.2021.                                                                           President.

 

 

                                      Member      Member.