DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/194/2022
Date of Institution: 08.08.2022
Date of Decision: 02.07.2024
Jaswinder Kaur Passi aged about 63 years wife of Sh. Teja Singh Passi resident of Khudi Road, Opposite Peerkhana Street, Shakti Nagar, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab, India.
…Complainant
Versus
Gurpreet Singh alias Guri son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Near Bus Stand, Village Katron, District Sangrur.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: None for complainant.
None for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Gurpreet Singh alias Guri son of Mohinder Singh, resident of Near Bus Stand, Village Katron, District Sangrur (in short the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the opposite party is a contractor who engages in the business of construction of building and takes contracts for construction of new buildings/houses/offices etc., and for renovation of old buildings/houses/offices etc. It is further alleged that the complainant was to get constructed a new Kothi for herself at opposite Peerkhana, Shakti Nagar, Barnala but being an old lady allows her nephew Gurpreet Singh Thind son of Mahinder Singh to look after, take care and to get the construction. In this regard said Gurpreet Singh Thind contacted the opposite party at Barnala and asked the opposite party regarding the construction of house of complainant on contract. The opposite party asked said Gurpreet Singh that they have lot of experience in the construction work since long back and opposite party assured regarding good construction work and himself would do the construction work at the site of complainant. It is further alleged that on the assurance of opposite party complainant gave contract for the construction of her building through her nephew Gurpreet Singh Thind and in this regard opposite party gave an affidavit with respect to the terms of the contract to complainant. The opposite party in the said affidavit stated that they will raise construction at the ground floor along with the flooring and thereafter first floor along with the flooring was to be done. Stairs of wall, outer wall and ramp 110 feet was also to be constructed. It was further agreed that the owner will provide only tea and all the articles of dhulla was to be arranged by opposite party for the lenter (roof). Full water to be sprinkled for plaster on walls and in case for any reason then owner will not pay for that and the contractor will bear all this. It is further alleged that it will be the responsibility of the owner for the articles in the plot and all the articles will be of the contractor like bathal, chalian, pairan articles etc., and the owner will arrange for soil/earth. It was further agreed that opposite party will receive the payment according to opposite work and will not ask for complete payment. In case opposite party will need any article, then they will inform the owner two days prior, pillars to be raised, beam and DPC are to be raised and the dhoola of the lenter will be opened after 20 days. It is further alleged that opposite party have not raised the walls of the house of complainant in proper manner and all the walls are not intact and the lenter of the house of complainant was also not proper which is hanging from various places and the plaster made by the opposite party is of not in proper manner and the same was thin and some places thick at some places. It is further alleged that the opposite party got the said construction work done through some of opposite party other masons/labour, resulting the poor quality of work. No work done by opposite party is not intact which includes kitchen, ramp, pillars, walls, lenter etc., even the shuttering is still left in the lenter and even the chughats were not filled properly which are left empty without filling cement-bajri, even the window panes are not properly installed due to which the glass got cracks thrice. It is further alleged that the complainant got her Kothi inspected through her nephew Gurpreet Singh from Engineer Rohit Bansal, Civil Engineer working on the name and style of “Baba Ji Associates” College Road, Barnala on 29.6.2022, who found that the walls of the said kothi are not raised in proper manner and all the walls are not intact and the roof of the said kothi is also not proper which is hanging from various places and the plaster is also not in proper manner and the same is thin at some places and thick at some places and even the door frame are not filled properly which are left empty without filling cement-bajri, even the window panes are not properly installed there and according to his opinion the owner may face loss of Rs. 10 lacs to remove the said defects. The complainant spent an amount of Rs. 20 lacs on the said construction which was wasted due to poor quality work got done by opposite party and has to face a loss of Rs. 22 lacs. The complainant through her nephew Gurpreet Singh Thind served a legal notice dated 13.12.2021 to the opposite party to pay the loss occurred due to deficiency of opposite party but in vain. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite party may be directed to release the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith up to date interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant.
- To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental harassment to the complainant.
- Further, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that complaint is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction as opposite party is residing at Village Katron, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur. The present complaint does not fall in Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further alleged that Gurpreet Singh Thind has no right to do any act on behalf of complainant Jaswinder Kaur, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The alleged Gurpreet Singh Thind has no any power of attorney to do any contract with any one in regard to the land of complainant Jaswinder Kaur. The complainant concealed material facts from this Commission. Complainant has not come with clean hands. Complainant has got no locus-standi or cause of action to file present complaint etc. On merits, the opposite party denied all the allegations/averments of the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 23.1.2023 has suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1, copy of sale deed Ex.C-2 (containing 11 pages), copy of affidavit of opposite party Ex.C-3, certificate dated 29.6.2022 Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, postal receipt Ex.C-6, copy of adhaar card Ex.C-7, affidavit of Gurpreet Singh Thind Ex.C-8, affidavit of Rohit Bansal Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
6. The opposite party has failed to tender any evidence despite taking ample opportunities and the evidence of opposite party is closed by the order of this Commission dated 13.12.2023. It is important to mention here that since 9.10.2023 neither the counsel nor the opposite party appeared in the present case.
7. Today none appeared on behalf of the parties to address arguments. We have minutely gone through the file carefully.
8. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party is a contractor who engages in the business of construction of building and takes contracts for construction of new buildings/houses/offices etc. It is further the case of the complainant that the complainant was to get constructed a new Kothi for herself at opposite Peerkhana, Shakti Nagar, Barnala but being an old lady allows her nephew Gurpreet Singh Thind son of Mahinder Singh to look after, take care and to get the construction, so the said Gurpreet Singh Thind contacted the opposite party at Barnala and asked the opposite party regarding the construction of house of complainant on contract and in this regard opposite party gave an affidavit with respect to the terms of the contract to complainant. In the present case, the allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has not constructed the house in proper manner and not done the proper work in the said house and due to the poor work of the opposite party the complainant has to face a loss of Rs. 22 lacs.
9. We have gone through the copy of agreement Ex.C-3 placed on record by the complainant which shows that the same has been executed between the Mason Gurpreet Singh alias Guri Singh and Gurpreet Singh. Further, in this agreement Ex.C-3 the terms of construction work have been written. So, from the above said agreement Ex.C-3 on which the complainant mainly relied upon it does not show that the same has been executed between Jaswinder Kaur complainant and Mason Gurpreet Singh alias Guri Singh. Moreover, the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to indicate that any consideration amount (i.e. advance payment or part payment) has been paid by the said Jaswinder Kaur complainant to the opposite party at any point of time. It is not clear from Ex.C-3 agreement that which and whose property is to be constructed. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint as the complainant has not part of the agreement Ex.C-3. The complainant is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as per Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the complainant Jaswinder Kaur has failed to make out a case of 'consumer' dispute between the complainant and the opposite party by producing any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.
10. So, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present case and the same is accordingly dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
2nd Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
