NAVEEN JOSHI Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ashok Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

(2.) This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, dated 26.05.2015, passed in Appeal No. 33 of 2009 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun, dated 04.02.2009, passed in Consumer Case No. 94 of 2006), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun has exparte allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards cost of doors and windows and Rs.5,000/- towards mental torture of the complainant and the appeal of the petitioner, filed from the aforesaid order, has been dismissed.

(3.) Bhupindder Singh (the respondent) filed a consumer complaint (registered as Consumer Case No. 94 of 2006), before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun, against Naveen Joshi (the petitioner), for compensation of Rs.60,000/- as the cost of doors and windows, Rs.20,000/- as the cost of glasses and polish, Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical harassment and Rs.5,000/- as the costs of litigation (total Rs.135,000/-). It has been stated in the complaint that the petitioner had a saw mill and was engaged in carpenter business. The respondent approached the petitioner on 20.02.2004, for manufacture of doors and windows and its installation at his house. The petitioner agreed for it and the deal for manufacture of doors and windows of good quality of timber and its installation at his house was settled between them for Rs.60,000/-. The petitioner started work on 20.04.2004. The respondent paid Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner, through the cheques and Rs.20,000/- in cash, time to time, to his carpenter and labourer. The petitioner manufactured doors and windows and affixed at his house. Within one year of installation of doors and windows, the timbers used in it, were crooked, due to which the glasses affixed in it were also cracked. The respondent immediately informed the petitioner about it but he did not give any heed, in spite of several request made to him, in this respect. On these allegations the complaint was filed on 03.05.2006.