State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. R.D.Sharma vs Roop Lal on 20 July, 2006
H
H.P.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SHIMLA
APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2003.
Date of Decision 20.07.2006
Dr. R.D.
Sharma S/o Sh. Hem Raj Sharma,
Indira
Market, Gumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur, H.P.
. . . Appellant.
Versus
Sh. Roop Lal S/o Sh. Gopi Ram R/o Vill.
Har Kukar,
PO Gumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P.
Respondent.
Honble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar
Goel (Retd.), President.
Honble
Mr. Narinder Singh Thakur, Member.
Honble
Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.
Whether Approved for reporting ?
For the Appellants. Mr. Davinder Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondent. None.
O R D E R:
Per (Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
The present appeal filed by appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.6.2003, passed by District Forum Bilaspur, in Complaint No. 141/1999, titled as Dr. R.D. Sharma Vs. Sh. Roop Lal, vide which the District Forum below in the impugned order held that the complainant has not been able to prove the case and the respondent-OP has not committed any deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the abovementioned appeal briefly stated, are that the appellant Dr. R.D. Sharma had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum. In the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant before the District Forum below, the grievance raised related to the house construction and plastering work.
3. The appellant-complainant alleged that the respondent-OP had agreed to complete the aforesaid work for total sum of Rs. 38,000/- which he paid in three instalments against receipts. The respondent-OP failed to complete the said work as per agreement Annexure C-1 and thereby committed deficiency in rendering service. Further allegations made by the appellant-complainant are that he suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 1,85,000/- on account of mental harassment, rental charges, staying elsewhere, traveling, boarding and lodging and loss of education of children etc. The appellant filed affidavit and relied upon Annexure C-1 to C-3 in support of his contentions as also by way of evidence in support of his complaint to show deficiency of service on the part of the respondent- OP.
4. The respondent-OP denied the allegations, however, he admitted that he received sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the appellant-complainant but denied the execution of agreement C-1. He further stated that he had signed the said document under the influence of appellant-complainant who is a doctor and the said document was written by the appellant. The respondent-OP further stated that sum of Rs. 10,000/- were paid to him by one Sh. Bishan Dass on 14.5.1999. The respondent-OP denied the execution of the document Annexure C-2 and C -3 and the receipt of Rs. 15,000/- and 2,000/- respectively on the basis of said documents at any point of time. The respondent-OP alleged that the appellant-complainant has not paid him the balance sum for which he made complaint to the Labour Inspector, who referred the matter to the Labour Court at Shimla. Respondent-OP has completed the work in all respects and there is no deficiency in service so far he was concerned.
5. In order to solve the controversy between the parties the Forum below, appointed Local Commissioner, Assistant Engineer, HP PWD, Sub Division Ghumarwin, who reported that plastering work has been completed by the respondent-OP, only some defects have been pointed out with respect to slab of top flour and projection thereof.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant is that the respondent-OP did not abide by the terms of agreement C-1 entered between the parties and thus, he did not render complete, proper and adequate work, and as a result of it appellant-complainant suffered great loss and damage. The learned counsel for the respondent-OP contended that the respondent-OP had completed the work in all respects and sum of Rs. 25,000/- are still due to him from the appellant. This position was disputed and controverted on behalf of the appellant-complainant. Further according to his learned counsel this is a case of no evidence that the appellant suffered any loss whatsoever. This has to be established by acceptable and legal material on record and no compensation could be granted to the appellant-complainant and further argued that there was no deficiency on the part of his client.
7. We have gone through the complaint, impugned order, and memorandum of appeal and also record of the case file. There is no reference with respect to lintel in Ext. Annexure C-2 dated 4.4.1999 which is receipt of Rs. 20,000/- as first instalment and also no mention of lintel in Annexure C-3 which is receipt of Rs. 18,000/- as last instalment. Agreement Annexure R-1 dated 4.1.1999 produced and relied upon by respondent-OP also finds no mention of lintel. On the Annexure C-1 dated 4.1.1999 produced and relied upon by appellant-complainant finds mention with respect to lintel work. In the face of denial of Annexure A-1 by the respondent-OP it was incumbent on him to have proved it and at the same time confronted the former with this document. Another reason to take this view is that Annexures C-1 and R-1 are not proved by any acceptable material. As such the appellant-complainant failed to discharge the initial onus on him. What falls from this is, that the report of local commissioner also becomes redundant. As it was relevant only, when it was established as to what was the work to be done by respondent-OP thus applicant-complainant has failed.
8. No other point was urged.
After having considered respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties we are of the opinion that appellant-complainant has failed to prove on record agreement C-1 and receipts C-2 and C-3 dated 4.4.1999 and 7.4.1999 respectively in accordance with law. Accordingly there was no deficiency committed by the respondent-OP, we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. Findings of the District Forum below, therefore appear to be correct and are confirmed as such. We find no substance in this appeal, which accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Office will make available a copy of this order to the parties free of costs as per rules.
Shimla.
20th July, 2006. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel )Retd.
President.
(Narinder Singh Thakur), Member.
(Saroj Sharma), Karan* Member.