The importance of providing cogent and independent evidence to prove allegations in a consumer dispute case.

Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member—This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum-II) dated 10.8.2005 in Complaint Case No. 877 of 2004: Sh. Vinod Kumar Anand v. Sh. Harbhajan Singh and Another.

2. Briefly the complainant’s case is that he had hired the services of the O.Ps. who are building contractors for repair and construction work in his house. According to a written agreement, a sum of Rs. 27,500 was settled as labour charges for completion of various works listed on the contract paper filed as Annexure C-1. The work also included, amongst others, making a gola on the roof to stop leakage in the walls, repair cracks in the roof and correct the slope of the roof. The O.Ps. started work on 2.5.2004 for the repair and construction. Entire construction material was provided by the complainant to the O.Ps. The averment of the complainant is that the repair work to the roof done by the O.Ps. was not proper and there was leakage when water was poured on the roof to check the work done by the O.Ps. He further stated that during heavy rains on 3rd and 4th of October, 2004, there was heavy leakage of the entire roof and the plastic paint of the roof was totally damaged causing further damage to the electric switches and the fans of the house and even the tube-lights got burnt causing him further financial loss. The complainant brought the deficiencies in repairs to the notice of the O.Ps. but nothing was done to remove the defects. A legal notice was sent by the complainant to the O.Ps. on 17.8.2004 stating therein that the complainant had suffered a total loss of Rs. 1,51,523 as assessed by the valuer Sh. R.D. Sharma. The present complaint has been filed praying for the recovery of Rs. 1,51,000. In addition, Rs. 1 lac has been demanded as damages for mental tension and agony along with litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000.

3. The version of the O.Ps. is that they had done the work properly and the complainant owes to them an amount of Rs. 12,500 as the final instalment of the work done. It has been further pleaded that the material supplied by the complainant was defective and sub-standard. It has been contended that the damage report prepared by Sh. R.D. Sharma is totally false and is a fabricated document.

4. In their analysis of the complaint, the learned District Forum has observed that there is no cogent material on record in the shape of evidence to conclude any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. The learned District Forum has also observed that the report of Sh. R.D. Sharma dated 15.12.2004 is wholly vague as it does not disclose the cause of damage to the building nor has he given any expert opinion about the precise deficiency in the workmanship or construction skill of the contractor. Regarding the balance of Rs. 12,500, allegedly outstanding against the complainant, the complainant has not filed any replication by way of rejoined to rebut or counter the allegation of the O.Ps. In view of the foregoing, the learned District Forum did not find any merit in the complaint and dismissed the same.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board and record of the complaint case was summoned from the learned District Forum. Notices were sent to the respondents. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant whereas Mr. Balbir Singh Malhi, Advocate represented the respondents/O.Ps.

6. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate firstly referred to Annexure C-1 and pointed out that the work at Serial Nos. 1, 4, 11 and 15 were not done properly. He also pointed out that the payment schedule has been mentioned at the bottom of the contract and it is not understood as to how the O.Ps. are claiming that they have not received any payments but have completed the work. His next submission was that the material provided by the owner was of g