Haryana

StateCommission

A/86/2018

UPENDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAGINI - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

27 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First Appeal No.86 of 2018

Date of the Institution: 02.01.2018

Date of Order: 27.03.2023

 

Sh. Upender Kumar, Carpenter, R/o Behind Kristurafg cathedral Form Church Bhagat Singh Colony, Sector-3, Faridabad.

…..Appellant

Versus

Mrs. Ragini W/o Sh. Ashok Singh, R/o H.No. 250, Sector -8, Faridabad, Haryana.

                                                                                       …..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   None for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 09 days in filing the present appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 01.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short Now ‘District Commission) vide which the complaint was allowed.

3.      Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the complainant that opposite party (OP) through Mr. Rajdeo approached complainant to make wooden doors and windows for first floor of her house quoted rates without material and under the supervision of OP, complainant purchased the material. OP with his labour started work without proper seasoning. She told OP to wait till the wood got properly seasoned which resulted into under size as well as shape due to which complainant suffered loss. OP received full and final payment on 19.02.2016. Faced with this situation, he got issued legal notice dated 08.06.2016 to OP but to no avail. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

4.      Notice was issued to the OP.   OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.10.2017.

5.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 01.12.2017, which is as under:-

“Opposite party is directed to pay amount of Rs.1,56,000/- subject to return of seven doors along with fittings, locks etc. which have been claimed to be defective by complainant Annex. C2 along with Rs.3100/- for mental tension, agony and harassment as well as Rs.2100/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this order.”

 

6.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OP-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh. Sikander Bakshi, learned counsel for the appellant.  With his kind assistance entire record of appeal including documentary evidence as well as whatever ex parte evidence has been led during the prosecution of the complaint has also been properly perused and examined.

8.       Learned counsel for the appellant argued that appellant was never informed by his own counsel  regarding respective hearings before District Commission and on 11.10.2017 OP was proceeded against ex parte. The Ld. District commission passed the order without appreciating the facts of the case. Appellant further alleged that complainant purchased unseasoned and freshly cut wood and OP was asked to start the work immediately after getting seasoning of the wood. No expert evidence was produced by complainant to prove on record the deficiency in service on the part of a skilled worker. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent since four hearings. Hence, in the interest of justice, arguments of appellants be considered sympathetically.

9.       It is true that the carpenter has taken up the work of doors and windows of the complainant’s house.  It is also true that as per Annex C-3, the appellant carpenter has received full and final amount from the complainant for preparing doors and window and appellant in Annexure C-3 assured the complainant in writing that as per his own knowledge and experience best material has been used and nothing un-towards will ever occur to the same otherwise he also held himself liable for any defect in these doors and windows in future.   Perusal of the photograhs of doors shows that some doors were defective.    It was the responsibility of the OP to prepare and work on wood after its make after proper seasoning.  Just to make money as quickly as possible, the carpenter prepared under sized doors, which also  got bent and became deformed.  However, it was the responsibility of the complainant to have started the work on the wood after its proper seasoning. Moreover there was no contest put forth on behalf of appellant before the learned District commission  which passed the order now under assail. Apparently there was no reason for the said commission to have throw out or discard. The version of respondent which was reiterated also on oath.  Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 01.12.2017. The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.       The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

27^th March, 2023                                                                  S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

 

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)