SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.P.KAPOOR, K.C.GUPTA
VINOD KUMAR ANAND – Appellant
Versus
HARBHAJAN SINGH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Balbir Singh Malhi, Advocate.

ORDER

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, th

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top