MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
Complainant has filed the C.C.Case No. 20/2023 U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-
Honbl’e Commission may direct the Ops to make payment of bill amount Rs. 2,38,022.84 along with interest to the complainant & also pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony, litigation cost.
Brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is a P.H. Contractor vide Agreement No. 129 with Op No.1 in the year 2020-21 to carryout the work as per Tender ID No. 18 of 2020-21 vide letter No. 2361 dt. 16.07.20. As per Tender the complainant was assigned with a work of sinking off 100mm x 50 mm size Tubewell through hand boring method at village-Juna under Marshaghai Block and accordingly work order issued to the complainant vide work Order No. 2590 dt. 27.07.2020. After issue of work order the complainant completed the same within the stipulated period i.e 25.08.2020. The executed work was check-measured by Op No. 2 on dt. 2.11.20. The complainant has completed the aforesaid work to the tune of Rs. 2,38,022.84 including GST Rs. 24,570.29 but the aforesaid bill amount has not been paid to the complainant as per terms of agreement. The Complainant also request to the Op No.1 several times but all are in vain. Then the complainant issued the legal notice to Ops No.1 through his Adv. For immediate payment of bill amount within the stipulated date but all are also in vain.
Though the complainant has completed the work the bill has not been sanctioned by Ops for which the present Consumer complainant has been filed claiming the payment of bill of Rs. 2,38,022.84 with interest and compensation of 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
The Counsel for Complainant has relied the decision of Honb’le Apex court in the case of the Joint Labour Commission & Registering Officer and Another –vrs- Kesor Lal in Civil Appeal No. 2014 of 2020 arising out of SLP No.2150/2020 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has defined and interpreted beneficiary of construction workers and whether beneficiary is a consumer U/s-2(d) of C.P.Act. 1986.
The Complainant is a contractor and not workman so the Judgment cited by Counsel for complainant whether applicable or not in C.P.Act, 2019 for workman does not arise as complainant is not a beneficiary but a contractor who was conducted the work by virtue of Tender and agreement for which complainant cannot be termed as a consumer. As such Complainant fails to make out a case and accordingly the C.C.Case No. 20/2023 is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
Issue extract of the order to the parties concerned.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 20th day of December,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
