DATE OF FILING : 11-11-2013. DATE OF S/R : 05-12-2013. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19-03-2014. Shamim Anwar, son of Dr. Nurul Huda of 16/1, Jolapara Masjid Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. - Versus - Md. Yunus, son of late Hafizullah of 16, Jolapara Masjid Lane, P.S. & District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.-----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R 1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- as the outstanding labour and construction charge together with other reliefs as the o.p. in spite of engaging the complainant for demolition of existing structure by way of payment of Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. for providing construction work on the premises no. 16/1/1, Jolapara Masjid Lane, Howrah, as per agreement dated 15-03-2010. In spite of repeated requests the o.ps. did not pay the same. 2. The o.p. in the written version denied the agreement and contended interalia that the agreement is a manufacturer one and he did not record his signature there. So the complainant should be dismissed. 3. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ? ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : 4. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Though the agreement between the parties dated 15-03-2010 is disputed, it carries the signature of the o.p. The o.p. even disputed his signature to have been manufactured by the complainant. Naturally we placed his signatures recorded in his written version and affidavit for comparison. The result is positive. We have least doubt in our mind that the signature as seen in the agreement is the same and identical to those of his signatures in the written version and affidavit. We, therefore, arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the o.p. once entering into the agreement with the complainant for carrying on the construction work in the premises no. 16/1/1, Jola Para Masjid Lane, Howrah, agreeing to pay Rs. 450/- per sq. ft. now conveniently disputes the same only to deprive the complainant from his bonafide claim. 5. Therefore, in our considered opinion there is no denying the fact that the o.p. entered into an agreement with the complainant vide agreement dated 15-03-2010 and that the o.p. did not pay a single amount over the balance of Rs. 5,50,000/-. From the enclosures it is reinforced that the o.p. has been playing a trick to deprive the complainant from his bonafide claim. It is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 388 of 2013 ( HDF 388 of 2013 ) be and the same is allowed on contest as against the o.p. The O.P. be directed to pay Rs. 5,50,000/- to the complainant which remains due as his service charge within 30 days from the date of this order together with interest @ 10% p.a. since 13-10-2013 till full payment. The o.p. do further pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment and a litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( T.K. Bhattacharya ) President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah. |