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. 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 tune of Rs. 100000/-(One lac). State Commission has carefully perused all the annexures filed by complainant. 8. Opposite party filed affidavit Annexure-Rl in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that husband of complainant namely Bhushan Kumar approached the deponent and engaged the deponent to perform mason work on daily wages @ Rs. 500/-(Five hundred) per day. There is recital in affidavit that two labourers were also engaged @ Rs. 300/-(Three hundred) each per day. There is recital in affidavit that deponent constructed new house in Village Abada Barana Tehsil & District Una (H.P). 500/-(Five hundred) per day. There is recital in affidavit that two labourers were also engaged @ Rs. 300/-(Three hundred) each per day. There is recital in affidavit that deponent constructed new house in Village Abada Barana Tehsil & District Una (H.P). There is recital in affidavit that after completion of new house Bhushan Kumar husband of complainant asked deponent for minor repairs of his old house. There is recital in affidavit that deponent told Bhushan Kumar husband of complainant that oozing of water from roof could not be stopped by minor repairs due to major cracks in the roof and bricks. There is recital in affidavit that deponent only conducted patch work and used one and half bags of cement only. There is recital in affidavit that wages of deponent and labourers were not paid and matter was reported before local Panchayat. There is recital in affidavit that complainant and her husband threatened the deponent for dire consequences. 9. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Prittam Chand in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is mason by profession. There is recital in affidavit that complainant and her husband came to deponent for repair of lintel of old house. There is recital in affidavit that deponent refused to repair old house. There is recital in affidavit that lintel of old house of complainant became weak due to seepage of water. 10. Opposite party also filed affidavit of Shri Pawan Kumar Labourer. There is recital in affidavit that deponent is labourer by profession and he has performed the work of labour alongwith mason Ashok. There is recital in affidavit that Ashok Kumar mason has constructed new house of Bhushan Kumar who is husband of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that due to seepage of water lintel of old house of husband of complainant was in dilapidated condition. There is recital in affidavit that at the instance of Bhushan Kumar Ashok Kumar mason conducted minor repair works of lintel of old house and used two bags of cement. There is recital in affidavit that complainant and her husband did not pay labour charges and when labour charges were demanded then Bhushan Kumar husband of complainant refused to pay the labour charges. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not use bitumen in the lintel of old house of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that complainant and her husband did not pay labour charges and when labour charges were demanded then Bhushan Kumar husband of complainant refused to pay the labour charges. There is recital in affidavit that opposite party did not use bitumen in the lintel of old house of complainant. There is recital in affidavit that Ashok Kumar mason did not commit any deficiency in service. 11. Learned District Forum also appointed Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan as Local Commissioner. Local Commissioner has visited the spot and submitted the report. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that condition of roof top of the old house was not satisfactory as per visual inspection. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that roof top was repaired by way of using concrete and whole area was divided into panels by way of using strip made of glass. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that glass was removed or got cracked at the site resulting in horizontal gaps 5-10 mm thick. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that in order to repair and fill horizontal gaps bitumen was used as filler material which was not properly filled as gaps in the roof of old house remained intact. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that ingress of water could not be stopped and resulted in seepage from roof. There is recital in Local Commissioner report that low strength of concrete was used for repair work and roof was made defective. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that learned District Forum has not framed proper issues from the pleadings of parties and on this ground appeal filed by complainant be allowed is decided accordingly. It is held that Consumer Protection Act 1986 is Special Act passed by Parliament of India in order to protect interest of consumers. It is held that there is no provision under Consumer Protection Act 1986 to frame issues on the pleadings of parties. It is held that under Consumer Protection Act 1986 an order is passed. It is held that there are two concepts under law (1) Judgment (2) Order. It is well settled law that issues are framed when judgment is passed. It is well settled law that in order issues are not framed. It is held that under Consumer Protection Act 1986 an order is passed. It is held that there are two concepts under law (1) Judgment (2) Order. It is well settled law that issues are framed when judgment is passed. It is well settled law that in order issues are not framed. It is well settled law that when there is conflict between General Law and Special Law then Special Law always prevails over General Law. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that complainant is legally entitled for amount mentioned in bills Annexures-C2 to C5. State Commission has carefully perused annexures C2 to C5 issued by M/s. Sood Trading Company, Shilpa Plywood House, Ram Pal and daily of mason and labourers. Complainant did not file affidavit of M/s. Sood Trading Company, Shilpa Plywood House and Ram Pal in order to prove contents of controversial bills. It is well settled law that contents of controversial documents could be proved by way of affidavit of person who had signed the controversial documents. As per section 13(4)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 contents of controversial document could be proved under Consumer Protection Act 1986 by way of primary evidence or by way of secondary evidence. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. 14. Learned District Forum also appointed Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan as Local Commissioner. State Commission has carefully perused the report of Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan dated 12.12.2016. Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned in his report that in order to repair and fill the horizontal gaps bitumen was used as filler material which was not properly filled as gaps still remained intact in the roof. Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan has specifically mentioned in his report that ingress of water could not be stopped resulting in seepage and damage to roof. Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned that inadequate strength of concrete material was used resulting in seepage. Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned in his report that roof of old house was made more defective. 15. Opposite party did not send any interrogatories to Local Commissioner. There is no evidence on record that Local Commissioner i.e. Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. Local Commissioner has specifically mentioned in his report that roof of old house was made more defective. 15. Opposite party did not send any interrogatories to Local Commissioner. There is no evidence on record that Local Commissioner i.e. Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan has hostile animus against opposite party at any point of time. Report submitted by Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of State Commission. Report submitted by Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division is expert report and is a relevant fact. Opposite party did not file any counter expert report. Expert report submitted by Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan remained unrebutted on record. It is proved on record that repair construction work was conducted by opposite party for consideration. section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was amended on 18.06.1993 and service of any description relating to housing construction was added within definition of service under section 2(o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Admittedly case of parties fall within the definition of housing construction work. It is held that when opposite party consolidated personal service with personal presence of additional labourer namely Pawan then services of opposite party did not remain in the category of personal service as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party that order of learned District Forum does not warrant any interference by State Commission and appeal filed by complainant be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that as per Local Commissioner report submitted by Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan that opposite party in order to repair and fill horizontal gaps has not filled bitumen properly and gaps in lintel were kept intact. It is also proved on record as per report of Local Commissioner that low strength concrete was used and aggregate of sand, cement and water were not mixed properly by opposite party with the help of labourer Shri Pawan Kumar. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed and compensation granted to complainant by learned District Forum is enhanced from Rs. 7000/-(Seven thousand) to Rs. 14000/-(Fourteen thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Point No.2: Final Order 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is partly allowed and compensation granted to complainant by learned District Forum is enhanced from Rs. 7000/-(Seven thousand) to Rs. 14000/-(Fourteen thousand) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Litigation costs ordered by learned District Forum to the tune of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) is also enhanced to Rs. 6000/-(Six thousand). Order of learned District Forum is modified accordingly. 18. Report of Local Commissioner i.e. Assistant Engineer Mehatpur Sub Division HP PWD Dehlan dated 12.12.2016 shall form part and parcel of order. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.