Haryana

Ambala

CC/128/2012

ASHOK KUMAR SOBTI SOBTI S/O LATE SH CHUNI LAL SOBTI - Complainant(s)

Versus

VERMA WELDING WORKS - Opp.Party(s)

RAMESHWAR DASS

20 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 128 of 2012

                                                          Date of Institution         : 24.04.2012

                                                          Date of decision   : 20.01.2017

 

          Ashok Kumar sobti son of late Sh. Chuni Lal sobti, resident of house No. 3,     Village Singhawla, Hissar Road, Ambala City.  

……. Complainant.

 

1.       Verma weldings works, through Sh. Amolak Raj Verma (Balane Wale)    resident of near Karan palace, sector-8, Ambala Ci…….ty.

2.       Sunil Kumar Verma Son of Sh. Amolak Raj Verma, Verma Wedding works,    near Karan Palace, Sector-8, Ambala city.   

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                             

 

Present:       Sh. Rameshwar Dass, counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh. Chander Deep, counsel for the Ops.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that Ops are running a welding shop under the name and style of Verma Welding Works, near Karan Palace, Sector -8, Ambala City and the complainant contacted the Ops at its shop to do the work at site in his resident. Further submitted that costs of the job was settled at Rs. 5000/- including labour charges, fixing on the gate and miscellaneous expenditure and the complainant is paid to the OPs advance money of Rs. 2000 for the above said job. Further submitted that the Ops assured the complainant to complete the said job within a period of 30 days, but they failed to start the said job even after lapse of 30 days from the date of receipt of advance money and the complainant made repeated visits and requests to both the Ops to start their job and to complete the same, but they remained putting off him on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed written statement submitting that the complainant got manufactured two new gates and total costs of gats is 27000/- but the complainant has only paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- as advance and also paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of installation of gate and it is also pertinent to mentioned here that a old gate was returned to the OP and the costs of said gate was adjusted in the costs of new gate which comes to Rs. 3220/-. Further submitted that in this way, the complainant has paid Rs. 2000/- in advance and Rs. 10,000/- at the time of installation of gate and Rs. 3200/- cost of old gate was also adjusted and the complainant had paid Rs. 15220/- whereas the costs of two gate come to Rs. 27000/- and installation of two gate is Rs. 800/- and the complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 15220/- and at present a sum of Rs. 12580/- is due towards the complainant and Ops also demanded their balance amount of Rs. 12580/-. The present complaint is filed by the complainant to grab the balance amount on the frivolous ground and same is liable to be dismissed.

3                 To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X and C-Y alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-4 and close his evidence. Perusal of the shows that evidence on behalf of OPs closed by Court orders vide order dated 15.05.2015.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had contacted the Ops at its shop to do the work at site in his resident and cost of the job was settled at Rs. 5000/- including labour charges, fixing on the gate and miscellaneous expenditure as per Annexure C-1 rough site plan but the grievance of the complainant is that as per the settlement between the parties i.e. complainant and Ops, Ops are failed to complete the above said job even after lapse of 30 days from the date of receipt of advance money dated 13.02.2011 Annexure C-2. Ultimately, complainant has to served the notice to the OP as Annexure C-3 by way of speed post and copy of postal receipt dated 26.07.2011 is annexure C-4.

                   On the other hand, OP has taken the stand that he had got manufactured two gates one is small and another is big and total weight of two gates comes to 450 kgs and the rate of manufacturing of steel gate is Rs. 60/- per kg and the complainant has only paid a sum of Rs. 2000/- and also paid Rs. 10,000/- at the time of installing of gate and old gate was returned to the OP. In this way total amount of Rs. 15220/- including the costs of the old gate which was paid by the OP and total work of gates has been done by the OP for Rs. 27800/- and rest of the amount had not been paid by the complainant when the OP demanded its balance amount of Rs. 12580/- but the complainant filed this false complaint only to grab the balance amount. He further taken the stands that two new steel gate was manufactured by the OP this fact can be verified by the spot inspection but the Ops failed to prove his version and also neither lead any evidence nor moved any application for inspection of any installation of the gate.

                   On the other hand, complainant filed the copy of receipt of Rs. 2000/- the above said amount has been paid by the complainant to carry out the work on the gate showing in the site plan as Annexure C-1. As per version of the complainant, the OP failed to carry out the work mentioned above and also not returned Rs. 2000/- which was paid at the time of the contract. The complainant also tendered affidavit as well as affidavit of Umang S/o Lt. Prabhat, he stated that he is well known to both the parties and in his presence, work was given by the complainant to the OP and the nature of the work was also explained to OP but OP failed to rebut the version of the complainant inspite of given several opportunities to lead the evidence and evidence of the Ops was also closed by Court orders v.o.d. 15.05.2015. Hence, we have no option to believe the version of the complainant and OP has received amount of Rs. 2000/- in advance for work of the gate dated 03.02.2011 as per Annexure C-2. In this way, OP has not done the work which was given by the complainant to the OP inspite of receiving the above said advance. Hence, the complainant has been succeeded in proving deficiency in service against the Ops.

5.                In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed with costs and Op is directed to comply with the following direction within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

(i)      To refund the amount of Rs. 2000/- as per Annexure C-2 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till its realization.

 (ii)    Also to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on account of mental harassment & agony alongwith cost of litigation.

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :20.01.2017                             

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                             (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

                           Sd/-

     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member