<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 04th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.271/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.B.N.Sridharan,C/o Somashekar Reddy,No.4057, Huskur Gate,Electronic City (Post),Anekal Taluk,Bangalore – 560 100.Advocate – Sri.H.C.SundareshV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Sapoorji Pallanji & Co. Ltd.,Represented by its Vice President,No.24, Surya Chamber,7th Floor, Murugeshpalya,HAL Road,Bangalore.Site office:No.10, Tata Advance Material Ltd., (TAML)Jigani Industrial Area,Anekal Taluk,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.K.M.Ravikumar<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,541-20 with interest and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant and OP entered into an oral agreement on 23.04.2008, wherein complainant has undertaken the painting work for OP project. It is agreed to release 80% of the payment at the time of submitting the bill and remaining 20% to be paid after 15 days from the date of submitting the bill. In the last week of April 2004 complainant raised the bill for Rs.50,314/-. As per the agreement OP is required to pay Rs.40,251/- but OP paid only Rs.29,732/-, keeping balance of Rs.20,582/-. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to pay the out standing amount went in futile. Then complainant raised second bill on 17.07.2008 for Rs.99,009-20. In all OP is in due of Rs.1,19,591/-. Again OP paid only Rs.8,050/- on 10.09.2008, remaining balance is not paid. OP is still in due of Rs.1,11,541-20. Though complainant issued the legal notice on 12.11.2008, there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP after the painting work is done by the complainant he got it assessed through the competent Engineer about ‘Work Done Activity Details’. Complainant has done work of Rs.40,251/- and not of Rs.50,314/- as contended. 80% of the bill amount Rs.37,782/- is paid. Hence OP is not liable to pay the so called Rs.20,582/-. Complainant has not carried out any paining work worth of Rs.99,009/-, hence OP is not liable to pay the same. OP is liable to pay only Rs.2,469/- not more than that. The other allegations are false and frivolous. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is much contended by the complainant that there is an oral agreement with regard to painting work to be done for OP on 23.04.2008. To substantiate the same complainant has not led any positive evidence. Further complainant says that he has done the work worth of Rs.50,314/- and raised the bill for the same on 15.05.2008. According to complainant, OP is expected to pay 80% that is Rs.40,251/- but whereas OP paid only Rs.29,732/-.<br /> <br /> 7. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that work done by the complainant is worth of Rs.40,251/-. He got work assessed through an Engineer under the ‘Work Done Activity Details’. Then made payment of 80% of the same that is Rs.37,782/-. Further complainant says that he carried out the work of painting worth of Rs.99,009-20 and raised the bill on 17.07.2008.<br /> 8. OP has categorically disputed and denied the said work alleged to have been done by the complainant. Under the circumstances the burden lies on the complainant to establish that he has actually done the said job, in our view complainant has failed to discharge that burden. On going through the pleadings of the parties it is actually OP who availed the services of the complainant and not the complainant who availed the services of the OP. So complainant can’t claim himself as a ‘consumer’ nor the present dispute comes under the purview of ‘consumer’ dispute. Considering the complex question of law it entailed it would require voluminous evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all this in its summary jurisdiction. Civil suit is a proper remedy.<br /> <br /> 9. On the plain reading of the complaint and the allegations made therein in our view it did not spell out the case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency. Rather it discloses a case relating to settlement of account and for the balance in due on the basis of the so-called accounts. Hence complainant did not fall with in the ambit of sec.2 (1) (c) & (e) of C.P Act. As already observed by us if the complainant is so advised he can file a civil suit for a proper remedy to recover the amount if any due from the OP. With these observations we find that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Of course OP has fairly admitted that out of Rs.40,251/- payable to the complainant they have paid only Rs.37,782/- and OP is in due of Rs.2,469/-. Complainant can claim the same in view of the admission of the OP. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant we don’t think the present complaint under the C.P Act is maintainable. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />