DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.634 of 2015
Date of institution: 24.11.2015 Date of decision : 03.05.2017
Madan Singh, Gali No.7, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Barwala Road, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).
……..Complainant
Versus
Haleem Thekedar (Civil Works) c/o Gurunanak Karyana Store, Gali No.4 Bhagat Singh Nagar, Barwala Road, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar (Punjab).
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present: Shri Ajmer Lal Punder, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Rajinder Shukla, authorised representative of OP.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Madan Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. An agreement was executed between the complainant and the OP on 01.05.2013 for reconstruction/alteration of house of the complainant which includes work by fixing stone in Bed room, hall room, 2 bath rooms, courtyard (front/back), reconstruction of wall and plaster thereof and dismantling/reconstruction and Mumti. Rs.1,20,000/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the OP towards labour charges. The material was to be provided by the complainant. At that time an amount of Rs.5,000/- was paid by the complainant towards earnest money. The work started on 17.05.2013 and continued upto 1st week of August, 2013 and during this period the OP had received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- upto 24.08.2013 whereas the Mumti work was yet to be completed. The marriage of son of the complainant was fixed for 13.09.2013 and the complainant asked the OP to defer the work till the marriage is over. The OP agreed to complete the remaining work of dismantling/construction of Mumti and flooring work of Hall room after marriage of son of the complainant. The OP received Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on 16.09.2013 on the pretext that the same would be got adjusted against extra work. After the marriage, the complainant approached OP for completion of pending work. On the persisting demands of the complainant, the OP sent one Umesh Sharma Mason for fixating stone in the Hall Room and on the asking of the OP, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to Umesh Sharma, Mason. Thus, the OP had received a total amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the complainant. However, the OP did not come back on the work for completion of Mumti work and later on flatly refused to complete the agreed work on the pretext that the said work was not included in the aforesaid agreement. Ultimately the complainant got the Mumti work completed from Vinod Kumar, Mason by spending Rs.20,000/-. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 07.09.2015 to the OP to refund/pay him Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.20,000/- paid in excess and Rs.20,000/- spent for getting the Mumti work completed. However, the OP did not respond to the legal notice. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to pay him Rs.40,000/-; to pay him Rs.30,000/- for mental and physical tension and agony and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.
3. The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing reply in which it has been pleaded that the complainant had engaged the OP as a Mason @ Rs.550/- per day alongwith other construction workers for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.07.2013. The complainant has wrongly portrayed the OP as a contractor to escape the liability of paying the balance amount of wages of the OP. The OP and other workers made a complaint to the Labour Inspector Derabassi on 09.08.2015 which is pending. After filing of the complaint with the Labour Inspector, the complainant fabricated the agreement dated 01.05.2013 by forging signatures of the OP to implicate him, got served a legal notice dated 07.09.2015 and then filed the present complaint before this Forum. The complaint is also time barred as the OP worked in the house of the complainant from 01.05.2013 to 30.07.2013 and the complaint has been filed in November, 2015. The complainant had also made a complaint against the OP to Police Station Derabassi. However, after coming to know the true facts, the police officials asked the complainant to pay the dues to the OP. Even the matter was also got compromised in the panchayat called by Nambardar on 24.01.2016 at the instance of the complainant and both the parties decided to withdraw the payment dispute case. The compromise bears signatures of both the parties apart from other prominent/panchayat members. On merits, the OP has stated that an amount of Rs.18,000/- is still to be paid by the complainant to the OP. It has also been denied that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- has been paid by the complainant to the OP against Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on his part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; affidavit of Vinod Kumar Ex.CW-1/2; copies of agreement Ex.C-1; details of payment Ex.C-2; legal notice dated 07.09.2015 Ex.C-3 and original postal receipt Ex.C-4. In rebuttal, the OP tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.OP-1/1; copies of application Ex.OP-1; agreement Ex.OP-2; report of handwriting expert dated 30.01.2016 Ex.OP-3; original report of handwriting expert alongwith five photographs Ex.OP-4 and order dated 11.07.2016 of Assistant Labour Commissioner Mark-A.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that despite receipt of excess amount of Rs.20,000/- than the agreed amount of Rs.1,20,000/- the OP had not completed the Mumti work of the complainant. The complainant had to get this work done from another person i.e. Vinod Kumar by paying Rs.20,000/- to him, which fact is duly proved by the affidavit of Vinod Kumar Ex.CW-1/2. Thus, as per the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. On the other hand authorised representative for the OP has argued that at the instance of complainant, a panchayat was convened and a compromise dated 24.01.2016 was entered into between the parties with the intervention of panchayat. The complainant and the OP had agreed that now there is nothing due between complainant and the OP and whatever case has been filed by them against each other, they will be withdrawn and no action be taken. The authorised representative has further argued that on the basis of this compromise, the application filed by the OP against the complainant before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mohali was dismissed as withdrawn. Thus, the authorised representative has argued that the present complaint may also be dismissed.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the parties. During the proceedings of the complaint, the OP had submitted certified copy of order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Court of Smt. Mona Puri, Authority appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mohali vide which the application filed by the OP against the complainant was dismissed as withdrawn. The perusal of the order dated 11.07.2016 shows that the OP had made statement that he had settled the disputes with the complainant and hence he does not want to pursue the present complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant did not dispute the veracity of the order dated 11.07.2016 on the basis of compromise dated 24.01.2016 between the complainant and the OP but has stated that the issue in hand has not been resolved which requires to be decided on merits. However, this contention of learned counsel for the complainant is without any basis. Once the complainant does not dispute the contents of compromise dated 24.01.2016, the perusal of which shows that all the disputes between the parties have been settled, it seems that the dispute of the present complaint is also settled between the parties as the dispute in the present complaint is of 2013 and the compromise between the parties is of 24.01.2016. Thus, we hold that there is no dispute between the parties and the present complaint deserved to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussions, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 20.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 03.05.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
