R BALAMMA Vs. YADESH KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 20 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 23.11.95 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which confirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Delhi in Complaint No. 1575/92. The Revision Petitioner before us was the appellant before the State Commission and complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for carrying out wood Work in her flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in April, 1990 involving an expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- and paid Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party as advance on 7.4.90 at the commencement of the work. The opposite party worked only upto May '90 and then promised to resume the work after sometime. By July '90 the opposite party is alleged to have received Rs. 27,400/- as advance payment but did not resume the work. As the work under the contract was not completed, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying that a direction be given to the opposite party to immediately resume and complete the work in terms of the contract and also claimed Rs. 24,590/- by way of compensation. The opposite party admitted having received Rs. 24,000/- in driblets and stated that he had carried out the work worth Rs. 29,000/- which included some additional work, not covered by the original contract, worth Rs. 15,000/-. He also stated that his tools and wood belonging to him worth Rs. 4 to 5 thousand were lying iii the complainant's flat and that he could not complete the work as the balance payment was not made to him.

(3.) The District Forum held that though there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party a direction could not be given to the opposite party to resume and complete the work in terms of the contract because the complainant had already lost confidence in the opposite party. The District Forum further said that no Vakil, Commissioner or Engineer could be appointed to assess the value of work already done because neither party was willing to pay for the expenses. After assessing the claim of the complainant for compensation, the District Forum awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of proceedings and directed the complainant to return the tools and the wood belonging to the opposite party after recovering the aforesaid amount.