State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Desh Raj Sharma. vs Sh. Kulbhushan Sharma. on 12 June, 2020
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 188/2018
Date of Presentation: 18.07.2018
Order Reserved on : 29.11.2019
Date of Order : 12.06.2020
......
Desh Raj Sharma aged 62 years (Senior Citizen) son of late Shri
Saran Dass Sharma resident of Santosh Niwas Village and Post
Office Ghuggar Tehsil Palampur Kangra (H.P).
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu son of Shri Joginder Kumar
Sharma resident of Jandpur Post Office Jandpur Tehsil Baijnath
District Kangra (H.P) and (Proprietor Ganga Roofing Trading
Company Banuri Tehsil Palampur District Kangra (H.P).
......Respondent/Opposite party
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. K.S. Dhaulta Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Tarun K. Sharma Advocate.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R :-
1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 15.06.2018 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/ Commission in consumer complaint No.169/2017 titled Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant Sh. Desh Raj filed consumer complaint under Consumer Protection Act pleaded therein that complainant is senior citizen and is permanent resident of village and post office Ghuggar Tehsil Palampur District Kangra (H.P). It is pleaded that complainant owns and possesses residential house. It is pleaded that opposite party is a private contractor under the business of Ganga Roofing Trading Company. It is further pleaded that on dated 19.05.2017 complainant given contract to opposite party for raising roof of second storey of his residential house alongwith some other construction work. It is pleaded that opposite party agreed to execute work in consideration amount of Rs.670750/-(Six lac seventy thousand seven hundred fifty) with material. It is pleaded that contract dated 19.05.2017 was also executed.
3. It is further pleaded that on dated 08.08.2017 opposite party alongwith Sh. Raj Kumar came to complainant and took a sum of Rs.150000/-(One lac fifty thousand) for purchasing tin sheets. It is pleaded that opposite party did not purchase tin sheets and fled away to Jaipur and returned after one month from Jaipur. It is pleaded that thereafter complainant visited residential house of opposite party and requested opposite party to complete construction work as 2 Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 per agreement. It is pleaded that opposite party misbehaved with complainant and used abusive and unparliamentary language. It is pleaded that criminal complaint was also filed.
It is pleaded that opposite party did not complete construction work. It is further pleaded that on dated 26.08.2017 opposite party under the influence of liquor brought one ASI and Constable to the residential house of complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. It is pleaded that legal notice was also issued by complainant to opposite party.
4. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite party be directed to pay a sum of Rs.400000/-(Four lac) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of agreement till actual payment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.100000/-(One lac) for mental and physical agony. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
5. Opposite party did not appear before learned DCF/DCC despite service and opposite party was proceeded ex-parte by learned DCF/DCC.
6. Learned DCF/DCC partly allowed consumer complaint and ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.40000/-(Four lac) to complainant alongwith interest @ 9% 3 Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 per annum from date of complaint till actual payment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred) as compensation for mental harassment. In addition learned DCF/DCC ordered opposite party to pay litigation costs to the tune of Rs.3000/-(Three thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by learned DCF/DCC complainant filed present appeal before State Commission and sought claim to the tune of Rs.400000/-(Four lac).
7. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant on merits and we have also perused entire record carefully. Thereafter matter was listed for arguments on behalf of learned Advocate engaged by respondent on 17.10.2019, 01.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 29.11.2019 and thereafter State Commission decided to dispose of present appeal on merits.
8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by complainant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Complainant filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence.
There is recital in affidavit that deponent is senior citizen. 4
Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 There is recital in affidavit that deponent owns and possesses residential house. There is recital in affidavit that on 19.05.2017 deponent executed agreement with opposite party for raising roof of second storey of residential house of deponent alongwith some other construction work. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party agreed to execute construction work and took consideration amount of Rs.670750/-(Six lac seventy thousand seven hundred fifty). There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not complete construction work in stipulated period and also fled away after extracting a sum of Rs.800000/-(Eight lac) from deponent. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party took excess amount to the tune of Rs.150000/-(One lac fifty thousand). There is recital in affidavit that opposite party laid down paranala (Eves) wrongly and in defective manner. There is recital in affidavit that complainant has to engage service of Shri Chet Ram and paid additional amount of Rs.40000/- (Forty thousand) to Shri Chet Ram for fresh construction work. There is recital in affidavit that on 26.08.2017 opposite party came under the influence of liquor alongwith one ASI and Constable and threatened the deponent.
10. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Sh. Chet Ram in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is a private contractor and performing work of 5 Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 welder. There is recital in affidavit that deponent inspected the work and found that earlier contractor or mason has performed defective construction work to residential house of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that deponent uprooted earlier construction work and completed fresh construction work of residential house of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that deponent charges an amount of Rs.40000/-(Forty thousand) as wages. There is recital in affidavit that deponent completed fresh construction work with the help of mason Sh. Anil Kumar.
11. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Sh. Harnam Singh in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent visited house of complainant in the presence of opposite party several times and found that opposite party has not performed construction work of residential house of complainant properly. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party performed defective construction work in nature. There is recital in affidavit that deponent advised opposite party either to remove the defective construction or to refund amount of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not pay any heed to advise of deponent.
12. Complainant also filed corroborative affidavit of Sh. Rajeev Bagla in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that 6 Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 deponent is performing business of Karyana. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party is private contractor and deponent engaged services of opposite party for construction work of his residential house. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party left work of construction in midway. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party committed unfair trade practice. State Commission has carefully perused all annexures filed by complainant.
13. Opposite party did not file any version and did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. Evidence adduced by complainant remained unrebutted on record.
14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.400000/-(Four lac) with interest @ 18% per annum from date of agreement till date of payment of entire amount is decided accordingly. Complainant has filed personal affidavit of Sh. Chet Ram. Sh. Chet Ram has specifically mentioned in his personal affidavit that he performed reconstruction work of residential house of complainant with the help of mason Sh. Anil Kumar. Sh. Chet Ram has specifically mention in his personal affidavit that he took Rs.40000/-(Forty thousand) from complainant as wages. It is proved on record by way of personal affidavit of Sh. Chet Ram that complainant has paid an amount of 7 Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 Rs.40000/-(Forty thousand) to Sh. Chet Ram for reconstruction work of his residential house. Plea of complainant that complainant has spent an amount of Rs.400000/-(Four lac) for reconstruction of his residential house is defeated on the concept of ipse dixit (An assertion made without proof). Complainant did not adduce any positive, cogent, reliable and independent evidence on record in order to prove that complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.400000/-(Four lac).
15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is entitled for additional sum of Rs.100000/-(One lac) for mental and physical agony is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable compensation to complainant for mental agony to the tune of Rs.7500/-(Seven thousand five hundred).
16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that learned DCF/DCC did not grant adequate litigation costs to complainant is decided accordingly. Complainant did not file any Advocate fee receipt on record. State Commission is of the opinion that learned DCF/DCC has granted equitable litigation costs to complainant. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. 8
Desh Raj Sharma Versus Kulbhushan Sharma alias Manu F.A. No.188/2018 Point No.2: Final Order
17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal filed by complainant is dismissed. Order of learned DCF/DCC is affirmed. Receipt annexure-C-21 relating to payment of Rs.40000/-(Forty thousand) by complainant to Sh. Chet Ram shall form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.
18. Certified copy of order be sent to learned DCF/DCC for information forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Due to winter vacation of State Commission w.e.f. 11.01.2020 to 23.02.2020 and due to country wide lockdown on account of Corona virus w.e.f. 24.03.2020 to 14.04.2020 appeal is decided today. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Sunita Sharma Member R.K. Verma Member 12.06.2020 K.D 9