Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 1306
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. P.S. Rana (R), President, Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member.
Sunita Devi - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar - Respondent
First Appeal No. 18 of 2018
Decided On : 01-03-2019
Mr. Amit Sawhney Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Adhiraj Negi vice Mr. Divya Raj Singh Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence, including expert reports, to prove deficiencies in service under the Consumer Protection Act 1986, leading to the enhancement of compensation for the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Consumer Complaint - Section 12, Section 15 - The judgment discusses the application of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, specifically focusing on the evidence presented, the role of the Local Commissioner, and the determination of compensation for the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party in conducting mason work. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party to pay compensation. The appeal was filed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, including affidavits and the report of the Local Commissioner. It found that the opposite party had indeed committed deficiencies in the construction work, leading to seepage and damage to the complainant's house. The compensation awarded by the District Forum was enhanced, and the order was modified accordingly.
Issues: The determination of whether the appeal filed by the appellant should be accepted and the final order of the District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence, including affidavits and expert reports, in proving the allegations of deficiency in service. It also highlighted the role of the Local Commissioner in providing a trustworthy and reliable expert report. The court's decision was influenced by the specific findings regarding the deficiencies in the construction work and the application of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the compensation granted to the complainant was enhanced. The order of the District Forum was modified accordingly, and the report of the Local Commissioner was made a part of the order. The appeal was disposed of, and pending applications were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
P.S. Rana (R) President - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.113/2015 titled Sunita Devi v. Ashok Kumar.
Brief facts of consumer complaint:
2. Complainant Smt. Sunita Devi filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant got conducted work of mason from opposite party. It is pleaded that mason installed glass over the lintel of old house. It is pleaded that opposite party used bitumen and defective concrete in the lintel of old house and consequently seepage took place in the lintel of old house of complainant and complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 100000/-(One lac). It is pleaded that opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 100000/-(One lac) from opposite party. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party pleaded therein that complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party. It is pleaded that complainant has suppressed the material facts from learned District Forum. It is pleaded that husband of complainant namely Shri Bhusan Kumar approached the opposite party to construct a new house inside his old house as old house was in dilapidated condition. It is pleaded that opposite party constructed new house in village Abada Barana Tehsil & District Una (H.P). It is pleaded that after completion of new house Shri Bhushan Kumar further asked the opposite party for minor repairs of his old house. It is pleaded that opposite party told the husband of complainant that seeping of water from old roof could not be stopped by way of minor repairs due to major cracks in the roof and in the bricks. It is pleaded that opposite party only conducted some patch up work by using one and half bags of cement as per direction of Shri Bhushan Kumar. It is further pleaded that wages were not paid and matter was reported before Panchayat. It is pleaded that Shri Bhushan Kumar and his wife complainant threatened the opposite party and alleged that complainant and her husband would lower the image of opposite party in general public. It is pleaded that opposite party did not commit deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 7000/-(Seven thousand) as compensation to complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Learned District Forum further ordered that failing which opposite party would pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till amount is not realized. Learned District Forum further ordered that opposite party would also pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand). Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned CO District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
5. We have heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
7. Complainant filed affidavit annexure-Cl in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party conducted construction work of house of deponent. There is recital in affidavit that lintel was not raised by opposite party in a proper manner. There is recital in affidavit that on dated 25.08.2015 opposite party filled bitumen upon the roof of house in a defective manner and water started seeping from the lintel to floor of residential house. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party used twenty bags of cements for repair purpose and complainant sustained loss to the t
