Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/39/2015

Surjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kulwinder Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Manjit Singh

19 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

 

Complaint Case No.39 of 2015.

Date of Instt.: 13.03.2015.

Date of Decision: 30.05.2016.

 

Surjeet Singh @ Bagga aged 41 years son of Gian Singh, caste Kamboj, resident of village Sadhanwas Dhani, Sub Tehsil Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad (Haryana).

          ..Complainant

     Versus

 

1. Kulwinder Singh @ Kala son of Nachhitar Singh, caste Khati, c/o Kala Painter and Combine Sticker, Near Petrol Pump, Patiala road Ghaga, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala (Punjab).

 

2. Bawa Mistri s/o Kartar Singh, resident of Chandigarh Road, Near Old Police Station Jakhal Mandi, Tehsil Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad.

 

                                                                        ..Opposite parties.

 

Before:       Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Raman Sardana, Advocate for the opposite parties.

 

ORDER

                     Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is owner of one combine marka Vishavkarma having registration number HR-23D/8241 and uses the same for agriculture purposes. As and when the combine is required by any person, the complainant provides the same to him. The opposite party no.2 is mechanic of combine etc. and having his shop at Chandigarh road, Jakhal Mandi and is very well known to the complainant for the last so many years. The opposite party no.1 is the relative of opposite party no.2 and op no.2 asked the complainant for any kind of repair/paint and fixing stickers on the combine from opposite party no.1 under his responsibility. On the assurance of opposite party no.2, complainant went to opposite party no.1 at Ghaga for paint and fixing stickers on his above said combine. It is further averred that on 25.2.2014, complainant met opposite party no.1 alongwith op no.2 at Jakhal and showed his combine and op no.1 told the complainant that he will give back the combine after completion of all the work within three days at Jakhal. The complainant had given Rs.10,000/- in advance to the opposite party no.1 in the presence of opposite party no.2. It is further averred that opposite party no.1 has not done the work as per the contract and caused negligence in his work. He did not affix the stickers and also not done the work of paint properly and did not provide the combine to the complainant within three days, which was most required by him. The opposite party no.1 refused to complete the work upon the combine within stipulated period and told him to hand over the combine after one month. On his refusal, complainant on 5.10.2014 got the work done from another painter of Punjab Paint House Budhlada road, Chural Kalan (Sangrur) and from Rajinder & Sandeep Painter at Chandigarh road, Tohana and paid the amount as demanded by them. It is further averred that complainant uses the above said combine in the state of Gujrat and Madhya Pradesh for cutting the crops as per demand of farmers of these states. Had the combine been provided to the complainant within time, he could have harvested the crops of 150 bigha agriculture land and could have earned more than Rs.two lacs in paddy season. The complainant has suffered loss of Rs.two lacs due to the act of the opposite party no.1. When complainant demanded back the amount given in advance to opposite party no.1, he refused to give back and also threatened him to involve in false case and to face dire consequences. According to the complainant, the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum on account of mental harassment and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel. Opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint by filing written statement taking preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer of the answering opposite party; the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; the complaint has not been verified in accordance with law; the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and complainant has not come with clean hands and has supressed the material and true facts. On merits, it has been submitted that complainant wanted to get paint his combine for which he inquired from Bawa Singh about the dainter painter who suggested the name of answering opposite party. Accordingly, complainant left his combine at the workshop of answering opposite party for paint and op no.1 agreed for the same. Complainant assured to give Rs.5000/- on completion of work. The answering opposite party completed the work on combine and it was with him for final touch. The complainant visited the workshop on 4.10.2014 and slept in the workshop. In the intervening night of 4/5.10.2014, he left the workshop at about 2.00 a.m., and took away the combine alongwith computer and floater of opposite party no.1 without paying the remuneration. He telephonically informed the answering opposite party no.1 that he had left alongwith combine. On finding, the computer and floater missing from the workshop, op no.1 reported the matter to the police and matter was compromised between the parties with the intervention of Panchayat. So, no deficiency at all on the part of answering opposite party can be attributed rather malafide and dishonest intention of the complainant is evident. It has been further submitted that complainant approached the answering opposite party 4/5 days prior to 4.10.2014 and not on 25.2.2014 as alleged. It is denied that complainant had given Rs.10,000/- in advance and was assured to do work within three days. As agreed, work of paint on the combine was almost completed when the complainant had taken away the combine alongwith articles of opposite party no.1 and in this regard he later on confessed and agreed to compensate the op no.1. The remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.  With these submissions, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

4.                Opposite party no.2 in his separate written statement while asserting that complainant is not consumer of opposite party no.2 also resisted the complaint on similar lines as that of opposite party no.1.

5.                The parties then led their respective evidence. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents as Annexures C1 to C4. On the other hand, the opposite party no.1 has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure R1 and documents as Annexures R2 and R3. The opposite party no.2 has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure R4.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                 Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 is running his mechanic workshop at Ghaga, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala (Punjab). The plea of the complainant that on 25.2.2014, he met with opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 at Jakhal for paint of his combine and fixing stickers etc. and gave Rs.10,000/- in advance to op no.1 in the presence of op no.2 is not substantiated by any reliable and cogent evidence. Whereas, the opposite party no.1 has taken a specific stand that Surjeet Singh complainant left his combine at his workshop situated at Ghaga for paint and had to give Rs.5,000/- on completion of work. The opposite party no.1 has also averred that complainant approached op no.1 for paint etc. 4/5 days prior to 4.10.2014 and not on 25.2.2014 as alleged. The opposite party no.2 has also corroborated the version of opposite party no.1 in his written statement and affidavit that complainant visited Ghaga alongwith his combine for paint and fixing stickers etc. It is not believable that complainant will hand over his precious combine to the opposite party no.1 at Jakhal without visiting his workshop at Ghaga. There is nothing on record to show that complainant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- in advance to the opposite party no.1. Simple oral version in this regard cannot be believed. It seems that complainant is alleging the fact that he handed over the combine in question to the opposite party no.1 at Jakhal for invoking the jurisdiction of this Forum only. So, in our opinion this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.                Even on merits also, we are of the view that complainant has not been able to prove his case. The stand of the opposite party No.1 is that he completed the work of combine and it was with him for final touch and complainant visited the workshop of opposite party no.1 on 4.10.2014, and slept in the workshop. In the intervening night of 4/5.10.2014, complainant left the workshop at about 2.00 a.m. and took the combine alongwith his computer and floater even without paying any charges. The said version of the opposite party no.1 is corroborated by opposite party no.2 and we also see substance in the contention of the opposite party no.1. In this regard, the opposite party no.1 reported the matter to the police station Ghaga on 5.10.2014 and moved an application against complainant Surjeet Singh for taking legal action against him. The copy of said application has been placed on file as Annexure R2. Thereafter, the matter was compromised between the complainant and opposite party no.1 on 2.11.2014 in the Panchayat in the presence of the several persons in which the complainant admitted his fault and agreed to pay Rs.23,000/- i.e. cost of the floater and labour charges etc. to the opposite party no.1. The said compromise deed has been placed on file as Annexure R3 which is signed by complainant as well as opposite party no.1 and thirteen other members of the Panchayat. Although, learned counsel for the complainant has denied this fact and stated that no such Panchayat between the parties ever took place, but the complainant has failed to produce even a single person as mentioned in the compromise who could make it clear that no such panchayat was ever convened regarding the above said matter. The opposite party no.1 has discharged his onus to prove his case by placing on file the said compromise deed. It is the complainant who is at fault as he took away the combine in the intervening night of 4/5.10.2014 when the work of paint on the combine was almost completed by opposite party no.1 as agreed by him with the complainant and it was with opposite party no.1 for final touch only. It has been averred by the complainant that the combine was handed over to opposite party no.1 in the month of February, 2014 for painting. A perusal of the record on file reveals that the said combine was taken back by the complainant in the month of October, 2014 i.e. after a period of about eight months. It is not believable that the owner will keep his combine lying in the workshop for a period of eight months for painting only specifically during the harvesting season. Therefore, averment of the complainant that he left the combine with the op no.1 in the month of February, 2014 does not seem to be correct. It appears that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and he has concealed the material facts from this Forum. The complainant, therefore, cannot allege that opposite party no.1 did not provide the combine in time after work of paint and has caused negligence in the work.  In these circumstances, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1. The present complaint against opposite party no.2 is also not maintainable as he simply suggested the name of opposite party no.1 to the complainant for the paint work of combine and that itself does not make him consumer of the opposite party no.2. The complainant has not been able to prove on record any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2.

9.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction. Even the complaint also lacks merit. Hence, we dismiss the present complaint. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:30.05.2016.

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                   President,

(Ranbir Singh Panghal)                       Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member,                                                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.