Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Sohan Bir Singh —Complainant
versus
Rajiv Singh, M/s. Prema Enterprises —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1042 of 2017
Decided on 27.10.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Pranav Sapra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Arjun Jain, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Since erection of greenhouse left incomplete, complain held entitled to amount incurred by himself on completion of works.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Greenhouse—Not erected in specified time—Refund of amount—Scope—Opposite Party submitted two quotations to complainant for election of green house at a cost of Rs. 25,90,000/- each and work was to be completed by 27.12.2015—But was left incomplete in around may 2016—Complainant claims to have incurred expenditure of Rs. 12,63,719/- in getting the work completed by purchasing additional material and engaging labour/contractor—Complainants own case that work had been got completed by him by July, 2016—Since the reason for cultivating coloured capsicum was already lost by May, 2016, the loss of cultivation is not attributable to opposite party—Thus, opposite party only directed to pay Rs. 10,85,319/- to complainant towards cost of completion of work which the O.P. had left incomplete—Along with interest @ 9% p.a.—Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment also directed to be paid—Cost of litigation at Rs. 25,000/- also directed to be paid. (Paras 9 to 11)
Result: Complaint disposed of.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—The complainant got himself enrolled under a scheme of Haryana Government where-under subsidy was paid to the farmers who built a green house and cultivated healthy crops, which included capsicum. The OP submitted two quotations; one dated 12.09.2015 and the other dated 14.09.2015 to the complainant for erection of the green house at a cost of Rs.25,90,000/- each. The work was to be completed by 27.12.2015. As per the terms and conditions of the quotation which was submitted by the OP to the complainant, 50% of the cost was payable on confirmation, 40% of the cost was payable on the material arriving at the site and remaining 10% was payable before start of the execution of the work. The case of the complainant is that the work started only in mid- October 2015 and was left incomplete in May’ 2016. This is also the case of the complainant that the material used was substandard and not as per the specifications given in the quotation. According to the complainant, he therefore, had to purchase material from other suppliers and engage labour etc. for completing the work which he was able to complete by July 2016. Alleging negligence on the part of the OP in rendering services to him, the complainant is before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.12,85,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by him in getting the work completed and compensation amounting to Rs.1,05,60,000/- on account of delay in completion of the work. The case of the complainant is that on account of delay in completion of the work, he was unable to carry out plantation during one season.
2. The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the quotations given to the complainant and has inter-alia stated in its written version that the complainant failed to make payment as per the schedule submitted in the quotation and as a result, the work started late with the consent of the complainant. It is pointed out in the written version that Rs.32,00,000/- which constituted about 50% of the project cost, was paid only by 06.11.2015. The OP has also claimed that the work was completed in time and a few days delay, if any, happened on account of execution of the extra work which the complainant had entrusted to the OP. The OP has also denied having used inferior material for execution of the work.
3. The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the OP had completed the work entrusted to him by the complainant and if so, whether there was any delay in completion of the work. This is not the case of the OP that the work was left incomplete by him, his case being that the work was completed in time and a few days delay may have resulted on account of the execution of the extra work. No documentary evidence has been produced by the OP to prove that the work was actually completed by him. Had the work been completed as per the agreement between the parties, the OP would have formally handed over the work so executed by him to the complainant under acknowledgment. The very fact that there is no document evidencing handing over of the completed work to the complainant, indicates that the work was left incomplete. This inference finds corroboration from the complainant having purchased material from several other suppliers and having also incurred expenditure on the labour required for completion of the work which he had assigned to the OP. There is no documentary proof of any extra work having been executed by the OP, on the request of the complainant. Had any extra work been entrusted, the cost of such extra work would have been settled between the parties. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the work entrusted by the complainant to the OP was left incomplete sometime in May 2016.
4. The case of the complainant is that as per the agreement between the parties, the work was to be completed by 27.12.2015. There is a specific averment to this effect in para 3 of the Consumer Compl
