GURDEV SINGH vs Ajmer Singh

IT is an appeal against the order dated 14/19.3.2002 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (hereinafter called the "District Forum").

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that Gurdev Singh, appellant-complainant (hereinafter called the "complainant") got his residential house in village Ghal Kalan, Tehsil and District Moga, constructed from respondent-opposite party Ajmer Singh, contractor (hereinafter called the "opposite party") on contract basis during the period from November, 1999 to February, 2001. It was alleged that the complainant had provided the necessary, construction materials and had paid Rs. 1,40,000/- to the opposite party on account of the services as full and final settlement on 4.2.2001 for construction of the house. However, the opposite party had not rendered his services properly. Cracks and dampness appeared in the floor, walls and the roofs in such a short period. Flooring was hollow, foundations were not properly laid and the plaster lost its gripping. The house gave an ugly look. It was then alleged that the complainant had incurred a loss of Rs. 5 lakhs due to the bad workmanship of the opposite party. In the complaint, the complainant had sought a direction from the District Forum to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to him as the opposite party was deficient in providing services to him. The opposite party in reply had denied having ever entered into the contract with the complainant or constructed his house much less on contract. He had also denied having received an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the complainant or execution of any receipt for the same. The alleged receipt, according to the opposite party, was said to be a forgery committed by the complainant in collusion with one Bhagat Singh contractor, who had a professional jealousy with him. The opposite party totally denied his involvement in the construction of the house of the complainant. A prayer was ultimately made for the dismissal of the complaint.

After hearing the Counsels for the parties and after perusal of the evidence on the record, the District Forum of the complaint while directing the complainant to approach the Civil Court, if he so desired.

HENCE this appeal. We have heard Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case with their help.

RELEVANT portion of the order of the District Forum while disposing of the complaint reads as under: "From the evidence on record, especially reports of the experts (Ex. A2) and (Ex. R2) and their cross-examination, it is evident that dampness and cracks have appeared in the newly constructed house of the complainant. The DPC is not properly laid nor the safeguards are provided in the foundations to obstruct the seepage of the water from the surroundings. These defects appeared in the construction partly due to the seepage of water from the surroundings and partly due to the sub-standard material used in the construction. Since the material was admittedly supplied by the complainant, he is also responsible for the improper construction of the house. However, the O.P. has denied emphatically his role in any way in the construction of the house or the receipt of the contract amount. He has even denied his signatures on the alleged receipt (Ex. A3) and termed it is a forged document, prepared in connivance with one Bhagat Singh, Contractor who has a professional jealousy with him. Therefore, we are to views the case very cautiously. The complainant to prove the execution of the receipt (Ex. A3) by the O.Ps. though has placed on record the affidavit of its marginal witnesses Sh. Bhagat Singh (Ex. A7), Avtar Singh (Ex. A8) and Gurmail Singh (Ex. A9) but cursory comparison of the signatures of the O.P. on the receipt (Ex. A3) with his signatures on his reply and affidavit (Ex. R1), creates doubt about the genuineness of his signatures on receipt (Ex. A3). Therefore, exhaustive evidence (inadvertently written as ''exhausted evidence'' by the District Forum) with the opinion of handwriting expert is required for the just decision of the dispute, where the parties have opportunity to cross-examine each other and their witnesses. The same can be done in the Civil Court only. Consequently, we feel that the complainant be advised to seek his remedy in the Civil Court."

We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. On a reading of the order of the District Forum and after going through the records of the case, we find that the District Forum has rightly decided the matter and has given the complainant a chance to approach the Civil Court in connection with the matters agitated in his complaint. The opposite party had completely denied his role in entering into contract with the complainant for the construction of the complainant''s house. He had also denied the receipt of amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party had also denied the signatures alleged to have been appended by him on the receipt Ex. A-3 about the receipt of money as alleged by the complainant. He has rather averred that it was a receipt forged by the complainant in connivance with one Bhagat Singh, contractor, who had professional jealousy with him. In these circumstances, the complainant has rightly been relegated to the Civil Court by the District Forum. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed as meritless. Appeal dismissed.