SHAM GOPAL SHARMA S/O RAMESHWAR DUTT Vs. TILAK RAJ SHARMA S/O MADHO RAM
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sham Gopal Sharma S/O Rameshwar Dutt
Tilak Raj Sharma S/O Madho Ram
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of District Forum Una, in Consumer Complaint No. 6/2009, dated 30.11.2009, whereby the complaint of the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to repair the lintel of the building of the complainant and to remove the leakage within a period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of order, besides paying compensation to the complainant amounting to Rs. 15,000/ - for causing mental tension and harassment, and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/ -.
(2.) FACTS as emerge from the record are, that the respondent, who intended to build a house had approached the appellant, who was doing the business of constructing buildings etc. on contract basis for construction work of his house and the appellant had agreed to carry out the construction work @ Rs. 70/ - per Square Feet as per agreement executed between the parties on 17.10.2004. After construction of house, its possession was handed over to the respondent by the appellant in January, 2005 after receipt of full and final payment. The respondent then started living in the said house permanently in January, 2005.
(3.) HOWEVER in the rainy season, respondent noticed leakage of water from the lintel of his house towards bath room side. He then approached the respondent to solve the problem of leakage. Appellant in March, 2005 carried out minor repairs and assured the complainant of no further leakage. But after some time, the leakage was again started. Complainant approached the appellant again to solve the problem. He however lingered on the matter. In September 2006, the appellant again sent his mason to repair the leakage, who carried out minor repair, but was of no avail. Respondent approached the appellant time and again to solve the problem which was persisting; after having lingered on the matter for a considerable time, the appellant finally refused to take proper steps, so that the leakage could be stopped.
In this background, complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed for deficiency of service on the part of appellant, wherein direction was sought for carrying out necessary repairs by the appellant to ensure stoppage of leakage of the water from lintel, and also to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 15,000/ - on account of mental pain, agony and financial loss caused to him and Rs. 10,000/ - was also claimed as litigation expenses.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.