NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 4228 OF 2011
[Against the order dated 07.09.2011 in First Appeal No. 159/2006 of the
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula]
Lachhman Dass alias Lachhman Ram
S/o Ajmer Singh
R/o Village Devi Nagar
Tehsil and District Ambala … Petitioner
Versus
Joginder Singh Mistry
S/o Chanan Ram
R/o Village Mehdoodan
Tehsil Rajpura
District Patiala … Respondent
BEFORE :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate &
Mr. P.V. Jalota, Advocate
Pronounced on : 2nd July, 2012
O R D E R
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7th of September, 2011 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission), dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/ complainant, which was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short District Forum) directing the respondent/opposite party to pay Rs.70,000/- being the cost of raw material, besides Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner/complainant entrusted the job of installing a tube-well for the purpose of irrigating his agricultural land to the respondent/opposite party Joginder Singh Mistry at a consideration of Rs.7000/-, which was to include the expenses towards purchase of diesel, perhaps to operate the boring machine. Additionally, the respondent/opposite party assured to help the petitioner/complainant in the purchase of electric motor, which cost him Rs.16,805/-, and pipes worth Rs.22,802/-. The respondent/opposite party completed the installation of the tube-well within a period of five days. However, while operating the tube-well the petitioner/complainant noticed the water being discharged was mixed with sand. This defect was brought to the notice of the mechanic/respondent/opposite party, who, though promised to set it right within a few days, failed to rectify the defect as a result of which the tube-well became dysfunctional.
3. In this backdrop, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum, who held the respondent/opposite party deficient in service in not installing the tube-well to the satisfaction of the petitioner and allowed the complaint in the manner indicated above.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of District Forum, the respondent/opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission, who vide the order impugned has set aside the order of District Forum, thereby dismissing the complaint of the petitioner. Hence, this revision petition by the complainant.
5. We have heard Ms. Monika Jalota and Mr. P.V. Jalota, Advocates appearing for the petitioner/complainant on admission. We have perused the record and carefully gone through the orders passed by both the fora below.
6. The only ground on which the learned counsel assails the order of the State Commission is that the petitioner/complainant had filed his affidavit and produced the bills and various receipts of expenditure incurred by him which should have been construed as sufficient evidence to constitute deficiency in service, which the State Commission has failed to do. According to him, the well-considered order passed by the District Forum has been erroneously set aside. We have noted this argument of the learned counsel only to be rejected for the simple reason that mere filing of an affidavit of the petitioner/complainant in the absence of any written agreement/contract which normally incorporates the kind of service to be rendered and under what terms and conditions, mere filing of affidavit ipso facto without corroborative/other supportive material would not constitute sufficient evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner/complainant that the job work entrusted to the respondent/opposite party was pursuant to any written agreement/contract which incorporated the conditions of payment/supply of material. In the absence of any such written agreement/contract, mere submissions and contentions would not be sufficient to hold the respondent/opposite party liable and that is precisely what the State Commission has done. We further notice that the respondent/opposite party in his written version to the complaint had very emphatically denied the allegation and on the contrary had stated that the complaint has been filed to avoid payment of more than Rs.20,000/- outstanding against the complainant against the electric motor purchased on loan from one of his relatives. The possibility of a false claim as a counter-blast therefore cannot be ruled out especially when the complainant has filed no rejoinder.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error calling for our interference in the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition in limine.
Sd/-
( R. C. JAIN, J. )
PRESIDING MEMBER
Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK)
(MEMBER)
Mukesh
