RAJDEO SINGH Vs. MUKHU MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 3.5.91 passed by the District Forum, Jehanabad in Consumer Case No.39 of 1991.

(2.) The appellant was opposite party No.2 in the complaint case. The case of the complainant was that he took contract under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna for clearing Pyne by an agreement per scheme No.5 of 90. The Mukhiya the appellant in this appeal was given a sum of Rs.7,500/- for payment to the complainant for that work but he did not give to him that money though the work was completed by the complainant. Consequently, the complainant had to sell his cattle for making payment to the labourers. But still the labourers who had been engaged by the complainant for clearing the Pyne has not been paid fully, and hence, the labourers are pressing for their dues. The complainant filed the instant complaint petition before the District Forum praying that the opposite party may be directed to make payment to him. The District Forum had directed the opposite party No.1 (P. V. P.) Block Development Officer who is respondent No.2 in this appeal to realise a sum of Rs.7,500/- from the opposite party No.2, the appellant and pay the same to the complainant within three months of the date of order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to realise the said amount together with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of realisation of the same from the opposite party No.2.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it is evident for the facts of the case that it is a case of breach of contract and the Consumer Protection Act does not contemplate such cases and the complainant may file a case before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction if so advised. It may be mentioned that the appellant has filed some annexures with the memo of appeal and from Annexure 5 it appears that the complainant (Respondent No.1) received a cheque for Rs.7,500/-on 27.3.90. the complainant - respondent filed rejoinder in the memo of appeal replying to the different allegations made by the appellant in his memo of appeal and he has admitted that he received the cheque but he has alleged that the Mukhiya, the appellant has taken the money encashed through that cheque saying that he was proceeding for Madras on behalf of the Government and that he would pay the renumeration of the labourers after his return from Madras and that the Mukhiya has not paid that amount uptill now to the complainant. Now these facts cannot be properly investigated under the Consumer Protection Act and with these allegations the complainant may file a case against the Mukhiya if so advised before the Civil Court of proper jurisdiction. Cases involving such disputes are not covered by this Act. The District Forum has erroneously held that this case is within the jurisdiction of the Forum because the complainant is an user and the complainant has rendered service through the agreement to the O. Ps. The District forum has completely lost sight of the dispute involved in the present case. It was not a case of deficiency in service. Rather on the facts of the case as alleged by the complainant if accepted, his case is of non-payment of the consideration of the contract which cannot be decided under this Act. Hence the order passed by the District Forum cannot be sustained.