BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Om Parkash s/o late Sh. J.R. Lall r/o 406, Sector 29A, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

Mr. Harbhajan Singh, 2445, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

                                   ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA        MEMBER

Argued by:       Complainant in person

Sh. R.M. Dutta, Adv. for OP

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             Briefly stated, the complainant entered into an agreement on 26.10.2009 with the OP for carpentry and paint polishing to be executed in about 25-30 days at a total agreed payment of Rs.two lacs. He has alleged that soon after the agreements the contractor (OP) started concentrating on new customers thereby putting the entire work at the mercy of his unskilled labourers.  The complainant has alleged that due to this act of the OP the work at the complainant’s flat slowed down and resulted in much material and time wastage even though he had paid him Rs.1,75,450/- by this time.  It has been alleged by the complainant that the act and conduct of the OP caused him lot of mental and physical harassment.  He has thus filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

2.        In his written reply the OP has denied that any written agreement was ever executed between him and the complainant.  It has been stated that he is not a contractor but a daily wager mistry only and no major mistake has been committed by him. It has been stated that he started work in the flat of the complainant on 2.11.2009 which continued upto 12.2.2010 and from 13.2.2010 the complainant blocked his entry into the flat whereafter he filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,60,159/- against the complainant which is pending. It has been alleged that the complainant in fact is a property dealer who did not pay his amount due of Rs.2,41,469/- and even his artisen tools amounting to Rs.18,690/- were withheld by the complainant unauthorisedly which has further caused him day to day loss. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the complainant in person, ld. counsel for the OP and have also perused the record. 
5.        It is evident that both the parties had set out amicably to execute the job of carpentry and polishing at the residence of the complainant.  The work has not yet been completed.  At the time of arguments the complainant has alleged that the delay was due to the casual and un-responsible attitude of the OP.  The counsel for the OP, however,  submitted that the complainant was not allowing the OP to even enter into the premises let alone execute the work and has even kept his tools.  The OP was a poor labourer and was still willing to complete the work properly, if permitted.  It, however, seems that the complainant was not in a mood to get the work done from the OP. It also need to be mentioned here that a civil suit (Annexure P-1) for recovery of Rs.2,60,159/- on account of work done has been filed by the contractor (OP) against the complainant and the same is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh. The exact quantum of work done by the contractor (OP) at the residence of the complainant can be verified only by proper evaluation by an expert. 
6.        From the averments in the complaint it is clear that the complainant at this stage is not willing to get the work completed from the OP and is also not satisfied with the work already done by the OP.  The complainant insists that the work is incomplete and substandard, while the contractor (OP) says that the complainant already needs to pay more. But the complainant is not willing to pay anything further. However, neither party have placed on record any evidence to show the quantum of work done and the rate at which it was supposed to have been done.  In view of above, we find that the matter cannot be settled in the summary proceedings before this Forum without proper evidence being led by the parties in respect of their contentions. Since the matter is already sub judice in the Civil Court, we do not deem it appropriate to adjudicate upon this matter at the present stage. The complaint is accordingly disposed of as the same can only be decided by a Civil Court.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.