BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.150 of 2016

Date of Instt. 30.03.2016

Date of Decision: 11.07.2017

Amritpal Singh son of Sh. Tarsem Singh resident of Vill. Bhundian Tehsil Bhogpur Distt. Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Sukhdev Raj son of Karam Chand resident of Vill. Charhke P.O. Loharan Tehsil Bhogpur Distt. Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh. BS Saini, Adv Counsel for complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by complainant, wherein alleged that the OP entered into an agreement with the complainant in the month of September, 2015 for fitting the kitchen boxes and almirah in the house of Parminder Singh Paul son of Sh. Dhani Ram resident of Vill. Bhundian Tehsil Bhogpur Distt. Jalandhar.

2. That the complainant was care taker of the house of said Parminder Singh Paul. So, the agreement executed between complainant and the OP at that time. The OP agreed for preparing the kitchen and almirah in total Rs.88,000/- and the OP received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant in advance. The OP also agreed in that agreement that the said kitchen and almirah will be prepared by OP till 30.10.2015 and the balance amount will be paid by the complainant after completion of the agreed work. The OP also agreed that the fitting material of the kitchen and almirah will be as per choice of the complainant i.e. of the KAIFF and SLEEK company. Copy of the said agreement executed between the OP and the complainant is attached.

3. That the OP has not prepared the kitchen boxes and almirah of the complainant till today. Moreover, some work did by the OP is of inferior quality and against the agreed consent of complainant. Hence the OP cheated the complainant. The complainant visited many times to the house of the OP in order to get the assigned work completed. But the OP started putting the matter with one excuse or the other. Later on the OP flatly refused to complete the agreed work of the kitchen of the complainant, rather the OP threatened the complainant to face dire consequences in case of again approached to him. Hence the present complaint filed with the prayer that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. till its realization and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for above deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice, mental harassment and restrictive trade practices on the part of the OP due to which the complainant suffered mental tension and further OP be directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to OP but despite service, OP did not come present and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte.

5. In order to prove the exparte case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith document Mark C1 i.e. Copy of Agreement and closed the exparte evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the entire factum as elaborated in the complaint, it reveals that the OPs entered into agreement to fit the kitchen boxes and almirah in the house of Parminder Singh Paul and complainant is the care taker of the house of said Parminder Singh Paul and as such the said agreement dated September, 2015 was executed between the complainant and OP Sukhdev Raj, copy of the agreement is proved on the file Ex.C1 and as per recital of the said agreement, the terms and conditions of the work has been duly incorporated in the said agreement and it is also mentioned that the total amount is agreed to be paid by the complainant of Rs.88,000/- and out of which Rs.50,000/- was paid as an advance amount but despite getting more than half of the total agreed amount, the OP failed to execute the agreed work which is clearly deficiency in service on the part of the OP and further the OP intentionally and willfully did not appear despite service which also shows the conduct of the OP that he is not willing to perform/execute the agreed work, if so then, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed which remain uncontested because the OP did not appear for contesting the same. So, under these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the earnest amount taken from the complainant i.e. Rs.50,000/- be returned to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of agreement i.e. September, 2015 till realization and further OP is directed to pay compensation for harassment to the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-. The entire compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of order. Complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh

11.07.2017 Member President