VARUN SINGHI Vs. T S NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant entered in to an agreement dated 30th November, 1995 with Mr. T. S. Nagar, Proprietor Neerv Construction Company, hereinafter referred to as the opposite party for the construction of first floor of the House No. A-41 Nirman Vihar. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party left the work incomplete and failed to remove certain glaring defects. Opposite party admitted specified short-comings in a writing dated 22.6.1996. Payment in terms of that writing was made by the complainant but the respondent failed to complete the work and remove the defects. The complainant sent two telegrams dated 29.5.1996 and 11.6.1996 and seven letters in detail but failed to elicit any reply to any of them. According to the complainant, the work left incomplete or defective would require an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- to rectify the defects and complete the same. Having failed to get the needful done, he approached District Forum. The opposite party appeared and instead of filing his written version giving a reply to each paragraph, the opposite party felt contented by filing a short reply with vague and general type of allegations. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum-IV observed that the complainant failed to place on record report of an expert in support of his case. It was further of the view that the nature of the dispute between the parties was such that the same could not be determined without taking elaborate oral and documentary evidence including cross-examination of witnesses. Accordingly the complaint was disposed of leaving it open to the complainant to seek his remedy in the Civil Court. In coming to this conclusion, the District Forum placed reliance on Special Machine, Karnal V/s. Punjab National Bank and Others, 1991 1 CPJ 78.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Notice was sent to the respondent by Registered Post and the same was not received back undelivered. Service was presumed. None, however, appeared for the respondent. The case was adjourned in the hope that the respondent may appear later on but non appeared on the adjourned date. We have, therefore, heard Mr. N. N. Anand, Advocate for the complainant and have carefully gone through the records.