Failure to prove existence of an oral agreement absolves the contractor from claims of deficiency in service.

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 04.01.2023 of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra at Dharamshala, passed in Consumer Complaint No.146/2022, titled Sanjeev Kapoor Versus Bain Chand Katoch, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to refund/pay amount of Rs.2,02,607/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint, till realization. The opposite party was also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased complainant Shri Sanjeev Kapoor, entered into an oral agreement with the opposite party for construction of his house in March 2019. The total cost of construction as per the opposite party was Rs.11,00,000/-. The complainant agreed to pay the same and the opposite party accepted the construction of the house with material and labour. The complainant paid Rs.11,00,000/- as advance. The opposite party did not complete the construction work even after receiving the amount. The opposite party left many things incomplete and even did not supply and fix the wooden items and grills etc. The complainant when requested the opposite party to complete the remaining work and rectify the defects, he firstly made lame excuses and finally stopped the work in April/May 2019. Thereafter, the complainant made complaint with local police station and the opposite party verbally assured to complete the work, but did not complete the same. The complainant thereafter approached Shri Shadil Thakur a technical officer to check and inspect his house and he after inspection made a detailed report of defects in the construction. The complainant got the work completed from one Madan Kumar. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.2,55,607/-. By alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed the complaint.

3. The opposite party filed reply to the complaint and stated that complainant Sanjeev Kapoor and opposite party never entered into oral agreement. The complainant is retired SDO from I&PH Department and due to physical problem he was unable to arrange the construction material and labour and as such requested the opposite party to supply the material and provide labour for the construction of upper stories. The complainant being the technical expert himself supervised the entire construction work. The material was supplied by the opposite party at the instance of complainant and payments were made accordingly by the complainant. At the instance of complainant doorpanes and windowpanes of deodar wood were prepared, but when the same were carried to the house of the complainant by carpenter, the wife of complainant did not allow the carpenter to fix the doorpanes by stating that same are of substandard woods. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. The complainant filed rejoinder denying the contents of reply filed by the opposite party and reiterating those of complaint.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission allowed the complaint.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Commiss