JAGTAR SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is an appeal against the order dated 20.8.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the District Forum ).

(2.) Brief facts stated in the complaint ar that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was constructing a house in the area of village Ladhewali, Jalandhar and he had a contract with the appellant-O. P. (hereinafter called the O. P.) for making wooden doors and windows. The labour contract for making doors and windows was at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. with all the fittings material of the owner. The O. P. started doing the job from 3rd week of August, 2000 and in the beginning the complainant paid Rs.2,000/- to the O. P. towards the advance. Thereafter, the O. P. did some work and had been taking the payment in instalments and in total he took Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but the quantum of job was not in proportionate to the money received by the O. P. On 6.10.2000, the O. P. requested the complainant that his wife was admitted for operation for delivery and for that purpose he required Rs.10,000/- but it was not true. The complainant gave Rs.6,000/- to the O. P. which was much beyond the quantity of work done by the O. P. The O. P. assured the complainant that the woodwork would be done in a very short period but in between he absented for 20 days. The O. P. did some work but again requested the complainant that he was in need of money for treatment of his wife and he took a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant on 16.10.2000 and 3.11.2000. Thereafter the O. P. stopped doing work and harassed the complainant. the complainant visited the place of the O. P. three-four times and requested him to continue the job but the O. P. made excuses and did not start the job after 3.11.2000. The complainant had suffered heavily financially as he had to get the job done by the other carpenter at a higher rate of Rs.22/- per sq. ft. The wooden job of the house was also delayed due to the departure of the O. P. by four months. The complainant was to occupy his house personally and had to spend rent for four months beyond the original schedule. The action of the O. P. , according to the complainant, was a deficiency in service on his part for which the complainant had suffered mentally, physically and financially due to the non-completion of the wood-work to be done by the O. P. The complainant had demanded compensation of Rs.22,000/- for the non-completion of the work and another sum of Rs.25,000/- as damage alongwith a sum of Rs.16,000/- for payment of rent against the O. P.

(3.) O. P. in its reply contradicted the allegations made in the complaint and alleged that as a matter of fact the O. P. was engaged by the complainant as carpenter and he had completed the wood-work of the complainant as per agreement. On the completion of the work, the balance amount of Rs.20,160/- remained due to be paid by the complainant to the respondent which he promised to pay within a week afterward but he refused to pay the same to the respondent. It is then stated in the reply that after being fed up with the attitude of the complainant, the respondent had filed a complaint with the Labour Inspector of the area and after that he had filed an application in the Labour Court, Jalandhar, under Sec.33-C (2) of the I. D. Act which was pending for adjudication. He also demanded Rs.20,160/- from the complainant for the work done by him. It was denied that any contract was settled at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. with all the fittings and material of the owner. It was also denied that in the beginning the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- to the O. P. towards the advance and thereafter he had paid Rs.6,000/- as alleged by him. It was rather the O. P. who was to get Rs.20,160/- as the outstanding work done by him. It is stated in the reply that the present complaint is a result of the counter blast to the claim filed in the Labour Court. It was stated in the reply that there was no merit in the complaint and was liable to be dismissed. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. Hence this appeal.