MALKIAT SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT WALIA
LAWS(HRCDRC)-2013-10-6
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 10,2013

MALKIAT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Paramjit Walia Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.S.GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/OP against the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 405 of 2004 - Paramjit Walia v. Malkiat Singh by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent engaged OP/petitioner for extension of roof of two rooms. OP carried out work at complainants house from 6.4.1999 to 14.4.1999. OP put lintel on the roof of the said house. Complainant incurred expenditure of Rs.5,000/ - for the material and Rs.4950/ - for labour. On 26.4.1999, the lintel of the roof was opened. It was found that lintel was uneven and not at the level of old construction. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint; denied allegations made in the complaint and submitted that he had done the work according to his skill and intelligence. It was further submitted that complaint has been filed to deprive OP for payment of the labour work done by him. It was further submitted that complainant fixed the rate of labour wages @ Rs.170/ - per day and not Rs. 150/ - per day. It was further submitted that OP never opened lintel, it was opened by the complainant himself without consent of OP and OP is not responsible for the loss in such circumstances and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint along with cost of Rs.5,000/ -. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed OP to pay Rs.9950/ - and further awarded Rs.5,000/ - for mental agony against which this revision petition has been filed.
(3.) NONE appeared for the respondent, though, on earlier dates, Counsel for the respondent appeared. Heard petitioner in person and perused record.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.