BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 252 of 2012
Date of Institution : 19.12.2012
Date of Decision : 2.5.2016
Himmat Singh (Ex.Captain of Indian Army) son of Sh.Dina Nath, r/o village Jhorarnali, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Roshan Lal (Contractor) son of late Shri Sahib Ram, r/o village Jhorarnali, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RAJIV MEHTA………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Gulshan Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Verma, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
Case of complainant in brief, is that the complainant and opposite party are well known to each other. The opposite party is posing himself as Expert Masson and also taking the contract for constructing the building/houses at various placed. In September, 2010, Op had taken the contract for constructing the house of complainant at Vishnupuri Colony near Air Force Station, Sirsa within six months and after settlement of all the rates, the opposite party started the construction work under the guidance of elder brother of complainant and after retirement from Indian Army, the complainant had looked after the construction work. He noted down that the opposite party was working very slowly and when he asked the opposite party then the contractor assured that he would complete the work as per his promise, but the opposite party did not work properly and left the work pending daily with lame excuse. The opposite party had received the amount of Rs.2,10,000/- from the complainant for construction work in advance. The complainant requested the opposite party several times to complete the working as he was paying the huge amount of rent . The complainant reported the matter to Gram Panchayat, Jhorannali and to the Police Station Sadar Sirsa, but in vain. Hence, the present complaint for payment of said amount of Rs.2,10,000/- besides damages for harassment and litigation expenses.
2. Case of opposite party is that he is a mason but not taking the contact of construction work. He is doing the work on daily wages and thus he has no concern for the rent of construction material and labour charges etc. Rather, the complainant himself did not pay the daily labour wages to the respondent and due to this reason, respondent had stopped to work. Hence, the complainant cannot get the benefit of his own wrongs. Rest of the averments have been denied.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.PW1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.P1-copies of statements of witnesses; Ex.P2-copy for compromise; Ex.P3-copy of order of Commissioner under Labour Law dt. 18.12.2013; Ex.P4-affidavit of Tarsem Lal Goyal; Ex.P5-cash receipt; Ex.P6-legal notice; whereas, the opposite party has placed on record Ex.R1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.R2-affidavit of Surender Kumar; Ex.R3-reply to legal notice; Ex.R4-affidavit of Baldev Singh and Ex.R5-affidavit of Gian Singh.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that there was a contract between the complainant and opposite party (who is building contractor) to complete the building within six months, but the contractor did not complete his work within the time agreed upon and thus, there was deficiency in his service and the complainant should be compensated accordingly.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party argued that
opposite party namely Sh.Roshan Lal was not a contractor and he was a daily wages mason, who worked for the complainant on daily wage basis. Learned counsel further argued that as the complainant did not pay wages to the labourers within time, so, the labourers did not work at the given time for completing the building. There was no contract between the complainant and opposite party. So, there was no question of deficiency in his services. Learned counsel for opposite party also relied upon the ruling of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench cited as 1992 ACJ 160, titled Champalal Vs. Dayavbai and others, wherein it has been held that “no workman will not cease to be a workman only by virtue of a contract if he agrees to work personally then he is a workman but if he does not work personally and gets the work done from others, then he is an independent contractor”.
7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the record of this case, we are of the considered view that there was no relationship between the parties as contractor and client. So, there was no contract between them and there was no question of deficiency in service of any kind.
8. Resultantly, it is very clear that there is no merit in this complaint. The complainant has totally and miserably failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, this complaint is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:2.5.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Himmat Singh Vs. Roshan Lal
Present: Sh.Gulshan Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.O.P.Verma, Advocate for the opposite party.
Arguments heard. Order is reserved.
President,
Dt.29.4.2016. D.C.D.R.F,Sirsa.
Member.
