NAZIR AHMED BHAT Vs. GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar (hereinafter to be referred to as the Forum) has been challenged through the medium of this appeal. The Forum has dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the plea that he had failed to prove that the respondent had provided defective service.1. The facts of the case in brief are that appellant who is an employee in the Jandk Bank had hired the services of the respondent for the construction of first and second storeys of his house situated at New Theed Harvan. Respondent is an expert mason by profession and he along with him had also hired the services of other four masons named in the complaint. In the second storey the chimney and kitchen were to be constructed and in the third floor trusses were to be laid for tin roofing and gables were to be carved out from the attic space. Appellant's case is that the respondent deliberately indulged in bad workmanship without bothering to observe the approved plan. The entreaties of the appellant to desist from committing lapses were being constantly ignored by the respondent. Deliberate delay was caused in the completion of the construction works because 184 working days were spent when actually very less number of days were required. Kitchen was constructed in such a shabby manner that it looks like an operation theatre. The chimney of the kitchen was removed and it was swapped by a pipe which arrangement resulted into poor emission of smoke. The tin on the roof has not been inserted in the trusses of the house, resulting into the inflow of rainwater on the inner wall of trusses which afterwards pours on the floor. The respondent in his written version had pleaded that appellant had started the house without any approved plan i. e. "naksha" because it was not prepared either by an architect or engineer. That respondent by using his skill and experience in a best possible manner had constructed the house in question and his conduct was approved by the appellant as he without any demur had wilfully settled all the payments including payments to the labourers and to the respondent. It is emphatically denied that appellant had provided any design of the construction works which the respondent was bound to construct.

(2.) Through the medium of this appeal the appellant has challenged the impugned order on the following grounds: (a) There is misappreciation of evidence. The learned Forum has failed in its duty to appreciate the evidence of appellants' expert witness namely, Abdul Hamid Shoda. The impugned order is based on no evidence. (b) The impugned order is based on no evidence.

(3.) Heard the arguments.