By G. Yadunadhan, President: The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a Civil Engineer by profession having office at Chalappuram and the opposite parties entrusted him to do the civil works, road works and land scaping work at the office compound of the opposite parties. The total amount proposed for the entire work was Rs.2,36,500/- and the supervision and technical charges was 0.4 % of the total final cost and a proposal for starting the work made on 5.1.2006. Complainant completed the entire work, but the actual cost of the work was increased to Rs.3,59,226/- due to various additional works and the same was informed to the opposite parties and they made no objection to this and an item wise bill for the entire work was handed over to the opposite parties on 21.3.2006. But the petitioner received only Rs.2,83,000/- and he further claims an amount of Rs.76,026/- from the opposite parties. The complainant has also to get an amount of Rs.14,400/- towards the supervision and technical charges, which was admitted by opposite parties and that respect petitioner claims Rs.90,426/-. Even though the petitioner contacted to the opposite parties, for the entire balance amount, they did not pay any amount so far. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, which caused severe mental agony and harassment. Therefore, complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.90,426/- and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties appeared and filed version stating that the complaint cannot be treated as a dispute coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. In fact the opposite parties having hired the services of the complainant, they are his consumer and it is not vise versa. The alleged non payment of amount for works undertaken by a contractor can at the most be the subject matter of a civil litigation and it can be never be treated as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and this will not come within the definition of dispute under Section 14(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite parties admit that the contract between the petitioner and opposite parties for Rs.2,36,500/-, but this amount was fixed to be payable for the 10 items of main work and 5 items of extra work, specified in the quotation. Opposite parties deny the allegation that petitioner incurred Rs.3,59,226/- due to various additional works and also deny the claim of Rs.90,426/- and further opposite parties allege that the entire works were not completed b y the complainant and abruptly stopped the work and the complainant did not carry out work No.3, i.e., lawn formation, work No.7, ie., plantation of plants and item No.9, i.e., pebble decoration and delay caused in work. On 17.8.2006, the matter was talked over between the parties and it was amicably settled for Rs.2,83,000/- and the complainant has issued a letter confirming this settlement. Therefore, opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as claimed. Points for consideration: (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer? (2) Whether the complaint is maintainable? It is the admitted case of both parties that opposite parties hired the service of the complainant, ie., the complainant agreed to do some work of the opposite parties after receiving consideration. If so, the complainant cannot be a consumer of opposite parties. The decision reported in 2002 (3) CPR 185, it is held that matter involved in failure of payment in respect of work executed by a contractor, it is not a consumer dispute. The case in hand is similar in nature of the above decision. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. There is no order as to cost. Pronounced in open Court this the 19th day of December 2008. Sd/-PRESIDENT Sd/-MEMBER (Forwarded/By Order) Senior Superintendent.
......................G Yadunadhan B.A.
......................Jayasree Kallat M.A. | |
