Complaint filed on: 26.07.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 30.11.2016

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1532/2012

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

S.Lawrence,

S/o Late Subramanyam

Residing at No.50,

9^th Cross, Arundatinagar,

Chandra Layout

Bengaluru-560030

By Adv. Sri.V.G.D’Souza

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Managing Director

‘The Club’

Unit of Bengaluru Resorts

& Clubs Pvt. Ltd.

7^th Mile, Mysore Road,

Bengaluru-560039

By Adv. Sri. Muniswamy  

                   Gowda

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

          The Complainant is seeking direction against the Opposite party for payment of balance amount Rs.3,25,000/- with interest towards the hiring of his contract work of painting the building along with the compensation of Rs.25,000/-

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that his service was hired in September 2009 by the Opposite party club agreeing to pay Rs.12 per sq.ft. for his work and he completed the work with the help of his labours by investing his own money.  The Opposite party paid only Rs.1,35,000/- as against his claimed amount of Rs.4,60,000/-. The Opposite party failed to pay the balance amount despite of repeated demand and legal notice dated 03.11.2011 and hence this case.

          3. The Opposite party has questioned the maintainability of this complaint filed for recovery of money which needs elaborate evidence of complicated questions. He has not used superior quality of materials for work and hence they got the painting work completed by another painter. This complaint is filed on false grounds. They have not received any legal notice. There is no cause of action for the complaint, it is barred by limitation. This court has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.

          4. The complaint has filed his affidavit evidence and has relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A15 documents. The Opposite party got examined as DW-1 relying on Ex-B1 to B10 documents/vouchers. Written arguments were also filed by both the parties. Arguments were heard.

5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite party ?

2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2. As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1 : The undisputed facts that reveal that the Complainant is a painter by profession and Opposite party is the club having building properties.

          8. The service of the complainant was taken by the Opposite party for painting of their buildings at the rate of Rs.12 per sq.ft. The Complainant purchased the materials required for the painting work as supported by the bills of various business concerns i.e. Ex-A1 to Ex-A11.

          9. The Complainant has produced Ex-A12 to Ex-A14 cash vouchers signed by him and issued by the Opposite party for total payment of Rs.65,000/-. Ex-A15 is another cash voucher issued in the name of Bhoja and not the Complainant and hence it is of no use.

10. The Opposite party has also filed ten such cash vouchers, among them Ex-B2, B4, B5 are the similar to Ex-A12, A13, A14 about the same amount and dates. Other seven such vouchers disclose that the Complainant by putting his signature has taken amount periodically and also finally on 10.10.2011. In Ex-B10 it is mentioned that he has taken Rs.20,000/- as full and final settlement and the name of Juhur Sir is mentioned therein in addition to signature of the Complainant.

        11. In this case the Complainant cannot become consumer as contemplated in 2(d). The Opposite party has not offered any service relating to the alleged prayer of recovery of alleged balance labour charges.

          12. The remedy to recover the balance amount is not with consumer forum and he has to approach proper forum.

          13. His averments do not disclose the cause of action to approach this forum. Accordingly, the Consumer Dispute No.1 is answered in the negative.

          14. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of all these observations the complaint becomes liable to be dismissed      and the Complainant deserve to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 30th day of November 2016).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party