VINOD KUMAR ANAND Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum -II) dated 10.8.2005 in Complaint Case No. 877 of 2004: Sh. Vinod Kumar Anand v. Sh. Harbhajan Singh and Another.

(2.) BRIEFLY the complainant s case is that he had hired the services of the O.Ps. who are building contractors for repair and construction work in his house. According to a written agreement, a sum of Rs. 27,500 was settled as labour charges for completion of various works listed on the contract paper filed as Annexure C -1. The work also included, amongst others, making a gola on the roof to stop leakage in the walls, repair cracks in the roof and correct the slope of the roof. The O.Ps. started work on 2.5.2004 for the repair and construction. Entire construction material was provided by the complainant to the O.Ps. The averment of the complainant is that the repair work to the roof done by the O.Ps. was not proper and there was leakage when water was poured on the roof to check the work done by the O.Ps. He further stated that during heavy rains on 3rd and 4th of October, 2004, there was heavy leakage of the entire roof and the plastic paint of the roof was totally damaged causing further damage to the electric switches and the fans of the house and even the tube -lights got burnt causing him further financial loss. The complainant brought the deficiencies in repairs to the notice of the O.Ps. but nothing was done to remove the defects. A legal notice was sent by the complainant to the O.Ps. on 17.8.2004 stating therein that the complainant had suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,51,523 as assessed by the valuer Sh. R.D. Sharma. The present complaint has been filed praying for the recovery of Rs. 1,51,000. In addition, Rs. 1 lac has been demanded as damages for mental tension and agony along with litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.

(3.) THE version of the O.Ps. is that they had done the work properly and the complainant owes to them an amount of Rs. 12,500 as the final instalment of the work done. It has been further pleaded that the material supplied by the complainant was defective and sub -standard. It has been contended that the damage report prepared by Sh. R.D. Sharma is totally false and is a fabricated document.