Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/193

Santoshi Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tejveer Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Lalit Maini

20 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C. C. No. :                      193 of 2018

Date of Institution:          22.11.2018

Date of Decision :            20.08.2019

 

Santoshi Devi wife of Bikram Singh Negi r/o Back Side Police Line, Street No.22 (L), Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.                                                                        

...Complainant

Versus

Tejvir Singh Singh son of Nachhattar Singh r/o Village Tehna at present resident of Dogar Basti, Street No.11(R), Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Lalit Maini, Ld Counsel for  Complainant,    

                  Sh Sandeep Handa, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

 (Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OP to refund the balance amount of Rs.25,000/- and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

cc no.-193 of 2018

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to get constructed her house and for this purpose, she availed services of Opposite Party. OP assured complainant and her family that he would provide the best possible services upto their satisfaction and would complete the task of construction within time without any delay and would also charge less construction cost than other contractors. Ld counsel for complainant submitted that it was agreed between complainant and OP that OP would complete the construction work of house of complainant for Rs.1,60,000/-. He started doing the work of construction and kept doing the work properly and he took all agreed amount of Rs.1,60,000/-from complainant from time to time against proper receipts. Complainant also entrusted work of floor and some other work to OP for Rs.25,000/- and on request of OP that he is in dire need of money, complainant gave Rs.25,000/-to him in advance before completion of task in the presence of Manpreet Singh. After that OP took his instruments and equipments from the house of complainant saying he is engaged in the work of someone for two days  and OP assured to complete the work within short time, but thereafter, OP did not turn up. Even he stopped picking their phone calls. Complainant alongwith her husband approached OP and requested him to complete the work entrusted to him, but he did not complete the work in hand and then, complainant got completed the construction work from some other person. Thereafter, complainant made several requests to OP to return the amount of Rs.25,000/-, but he refused to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/-taken from complainant in advance. Even he made false complaint before Police, due to which complainant and her family had to suffer great harassment and mental agony. Despite several requests, OP did not return the

cc no.-193 of 2018

amount of Rs.25,000/-to complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to complainant. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 27.11.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                                       In reply, OP denied all the allegations of complainant being false, frivolous and vexatious and asserted that he is not a contractor. He completed entire construction work of house of complainant on daily wages at the rate of Rs.550/-per day as labour charges. it is totally denied that complainant ever gave any advance amount to answering OP and even no extra work of floor was given to him. it is averred that answering OP is a mason by profession and complainant hired his services for completing the construction of his her house on vacant plot. OP started the work on 16.08.2017 for Rs.550/-per day and complete the work in 156 days and also did the work of earth levelling, ramp and gate work. It is admitted that he received Rs.1,85,000/- from complainant. Rs.85,800/- were of his labour charges. He paid Rs.24,500/- for earth filing, Rs.35,770/- for shuttering, Rs.7200/- for lentil machine, tractor and iron jaal, Rs.42,200/-as mason to Sukhbir Singh, Rs.46,200/-to Bhinder Singh, Rs.12,630/-to Baba Singh on various dates on asking of complainant. He received Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant and amount of Rs.70,000/-on account of his labour charges is still due towards complainant. He has denied all the allegations of complainant

cc no.-193 of 2018

being concocted ones and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                           Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                          To controvert the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Tejvir Singh Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-7 and then closed the same on behalf of OP.

7                                                        We have heard the counsel for complainant  and OP and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and evidence of complainant as well as OPs.

8                                     It is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant entered into a contract with OP for construction of her house and it was agreed between the parties that OP would complete the construction work of house of complainant for Rs.1,60,000/-. During the process of construction work, OP took agreed amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from time to time against proper receipts. Complainant also entrusted work of floor and some other work to OP for Rs.25,000/- and on request of OP that he is in dire need of money, complainant gave Rs.25,000/-to him in advance before completion of task in the presence of Manpreet Singh, but thereafter OP took all his equipments from the house of complainant assuring to complete the work within short time, but did not turn up. Despite several requests by complainant and her husband, OP neither completed

cc no.-193 of 2018

the remaining work nor refunded the amount of Rs.25,000/-to her and due to this act of OP, complainant had to suffer huge harassment and mental agony and all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. She has prayed for accepting the present and stressed on documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-7.                                                   On the other hand, plea taken by OP is that he is not a contractor, rather he works on daily basis. He has denied all the allegations of complainant being incorrect, but admitted before the Forum that he received the amount of Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant and he spent the same on several occasions for expenditure incurred in construction work like he paid Rs.24,500/- for earth filing, Rs.35,770/- for shuttering, Rs.7200/- for lentil machine, tractor and iron jaal, Rs.42,200/-as mason to Sukhbir Singh, Rs.46,200/-to Bhinder Singh, Rs.12,630/-to Baba Singh on various dates on asking of complainant. He received Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant and amount of Rs.70,000/-on account of his labour charges is still due towards complainant. As per OP there is no deficiency in service on his part.

9                                         From the careful perusal of document Ex C-4 which is copy of complaint made by complainant to SSP, Faridkot, it is clear that complainant hired the services of OP for construction of her house for Rs.1,60,000/-. Complainant paid all this amount to OP against proper receipt Ex C-6 which further proves the pleadings of complainant.  In spite of Rs1,60,000/-, OP also took Rs.25,000/-in advance from complainant, but he did not complete the work entrusted to him. document Ex C-6 is self explanatory and clearly reveals that OP took Rs.25,000/-in advance from complainant and in total he received Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant. Plea taken by OP that he was working on daily

cc no.-193 of 2018

basis for Rs.550/-per day, has no stand in the light of his own statement given before this Forum wherein OP has duly admitted this fact of receipt of Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant in his written version. Moreover, from the perusal of application submitted by him to Police, in which he himself admitted that he agreed to construct the house  of complainant on contract basis at the rate of Rs.110/-per square feet. Now, he cannot deny the same by saying that he was constructing the house of complainant on daily wages. From the document Ex C-6, it is transpired that OP himself admitted that he has received Rs.1,85,000/-from complainant. The version of the OP is that he made payment for earth filling, for material and as labour to other labourers on behalf of complainant and amount of Rs.70,000/-is still due towards complainant but in support of his version, he has not produced any bill or receipt for payment of material or labour charges on behalf of complainant as alleged by him. So, this allegation of Opposite Party cannot be relied upon. OP has failed to prove his version.

10                                              From the above discussion and keeping in view the record placed on file, it is observed that there is trade mal practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP in not completing the extra work given to him by complainant for Rs.25,000/-. OP neither completed the work nor refunded the amount of Rs.25,000/-that he received in advance from complainant. This Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and he has caused harassment and mental agony to her. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with order to OP to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- to complainant within one month of receipt of the copy of the order. OP is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for

cc no.-193 of 2018

 

harassment and mental agony as well as for litigation expenses incurred by her. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 20.08.2019

     (Param Pal Kaur)                (Ajit Aggarwal)                   Member                               President