SATYA PAL CHADDHA Vs. YAGYA NARAIN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Fora below. In this case, the respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. It is his case that Satish Sharma, Contractor introduced by the petitioner was engaged for boring and installation of submersible pump. As the petitioner found the submersible pump and other equipments to be defective, he filed a complaint before District Forum. District Forum directed the opposite party who is the petitioner before us sought to pay Rs. 45,000 to the complainant besides cost of Rs. 500.

(2.) DISTRICT Forum also held that tubewell was defective. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that District Forum had got the tubewell examined by the officer of the Public Health Engineering Department, Rewa who submitted their inspection report. Assistant Engineer of this Department submitted the inspection report which was counter -signed by the Executive Engineer that the well was defective and the motor could not get the tubewell running hence rendering it totally useless. Accordingly, the State Commission held that there was deficiency in service by the petitioner.

(3.) THE State Commission further observed that their receipts signed by Sh. Satya Pal Chaddha on 19.5.1994 and 2.6.1994 show that the petitioner has charged from the complainant Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 30,000. The bill for Rs. 25,560 is also filed and proved in evidence. Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal along with cost of Rs. 500. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before us. When the matter came up for hearing before this Commission for admission this Commission directed that order passed by the Fora below shall remain stayed subject to deposit of half of the awarded amount subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Commission that 50% of the amount has already been deposited before the State Commission as a pre -condition for hearing the appeal. The complainant was permitted to withdraw this amount as per the direction of this Commission.