State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parminder Singh And Another vs Angrej Singh on 9 January, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 124 of 2013
Date of institution : 05.02.2013
Date of decision : 09.01.2014
1. Parminder Singh s/o Late Shri Gurdial Singh,
2. Charanjit Singh s/o Late Shri Gurdial Singh,
Both residents of V.P.O. Thana, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib,
District Roopnagar (Punjab).
.......Appellants- Complainants
Versus
Angrej Singh s/o Shri Surinder Singh, Contractor, now the resident of
H.No.396, Block-FF, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Roopnagar.
......Respondent- Opposite Party
First Appeal against the order dated
31.12.2012 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Shri H.S. Saini, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Angrej Singh (In Person). JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-complainants against the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which their complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") was dismissed with liberty to them to approach the civil court. They averred in their complaint that they entered into an agreement on 31.10.2012 with the First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 2 respondent/opposite party, who claimed himself as Building Finishing Job Contractor, for executing finishing jobs (interior emulsion, exterior emulsion, wooden polish and synthetic enamel etc.) of their newly constructed house situated in Village Lodhipur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Roopnagar, for Rs.1,00,000/-. As per the terms of the agreement, the opposite party was required to complete the entire finishing job by way of superior quality workmanship, best engineering practice and superior quality finish within four months from the date of agreement. He started executing the job in very irregular way and many a times stopped the work intentionally to pressurize them to pay the excess advance payments. On account of the stoppage of the work substantive quantity of mixed material got destroyed. The opposite party did not carry out surface preparation and sand papering properly as per the terms of the work and did not execute quality work. However, he continued to receive the payments from them in excess on one pretext or the other and never made sincere efforts to execute the job. They issued a warning to him, vide registered letter dated 29.3.2012, when they found that the work was sub-standard and progress thereof was slow and there was wastage of material. He was called upon to improve the quality and reduce the wastage of the material. In spite of the issuance of that warning and verbal requests he did not expedite the work and managed to receive the substantial amount under the contract to the tune of Rs.70,000/- by making excuses. He stopped the work and was asked, vide letter dated 2.5.2012, either to start the same and complete it immediately First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 3 or to refund the above said amount of Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter, the second registered letter dated 15.5.2012 was written to him for starting the work immediately or to refund the amount and was also warned that in case of his failure to restart the work immediately, they would get the same executed through some other party. All those requests went un-responded and accordingly they engaged other party for executing the work by spending Rs.37,500/-. Still 40 to 45% finishing job is pending. The opposite party failed to provide the services as per the terms of the agreement and received the payments in excess and thus committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The same caused harassment and mental agony to them and they suffered huge loss. They prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,90,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 12%. The break-up of that amount was given as under:-
S.No. Description of Claim Amount
(in Rs.)
i) Advance payments (as per clause no.6 of 50,000.00
agreement)
ii) Penalty as per clause no.6 of agreement 20,000.00
iii) Wastage of material 20,000.00
iv) Sub Standard Work 20,000.00
v) Reimbursement of house rent paid by 20,000.00
complainants due to non-shifting to their
new house
vi) Damages and unapparent 50,000.00
vii) Litigation expenses 10,000.00
Total:- 1,90,000.00
2. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. In the
written reply he averred that Parminder Singh, complainant, approached him after he saw the performance of his work and he First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 4 quoted two rates of wall paints and wooden work. Thereafter he was introduced to Charanjeet Singh, complainant, who was not previously known to him. On 31.1.2012 Parminder Singh, complainant, asked him to come at Nangal Bus Stand and to show the licence. After he had shown his voter I.D. card the final rates were fixed for Emary paper, Primer and Emalshiam at Rs.4/- and for wooden work at Rs.40/-. Thereafter he was asked to put his signatures on the agreement but he told him that he would put his signatures only after the contents of the agreement were made known to him in Punjabi as English language was not known to him. He put his signatures after he was told that the same was to be submitted then and there. He went to the place of work on 1.2.2012 and gave the list of material required for executing the work. He finished the second floor primer work and after the same was seen by Charanjeet Singh, complainant, he asked him to come to his bungalow also for the same work and before that he enquired about the rates, which were fixed by the other complainant. Thereafter he started the painting work in the bungalow of Charanjeet Singh, complainant, for which the material was being provided to him. The execution of the work at the house of Parminder Singh, complainant, was delayed as he was residing at Nangal and was not providing the material on time. He received different amounts totalling Rs.48,000/- on different dates from Parminder Singh; the details of which were given by him in the written reply. Similarly, he received different amounts on different dates totalling Rs.38,000/- from Charanjeet Singh; the details of which are also given in the written reply. The First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 5 small payments were being made as both of them were getting the finishing work done from another painter. For the work executed by him for the complainants a sum of Rs.92,280/- is due from Parminder Singh and a sum of Rs.1,02,280/- is due from Charanjeet Singh. The calculations of those amounts were given by him in the written reply.
3. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf dismissed the complaint while relegating the parties to the civil court, vide aforesaid order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainants and the opposite party in person. We have also carefully gone through the records of the case.
5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that sufficient evidence was produced by the complainants before the District Forum and from that evidence, it can easily be concluded that the complainant had been receiving advance payments and still did not execute the work as per the terms of the agreement. From that evidence, it can be concluded as to how much amount was received by him and how much work was executed by him at the spot. In such like situation, the District Forum was not justified in referring the complainants to the Civil Court. The remedy provided under the Act is an additional remedy and the Act is meant for protecting the interest of the consumer. The complainants might have a remedy before the Civil Court but merely on that ground they First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 6 could not have been relegated to the civil court. From the evidence produced on the record, it stands proved that the complainant was deficient in service as a result of which the complainants suffered mental agony and harassment, for which they are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the complaint. In addition to that they are also entitled to recover the amounts received by the opposite party in excess. In support of his arguments he cited 1998(1) CPC 423 (M/s Spring Meadows Hospital (Noida) and Another v. Harjot Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Another) and 2012(1) CPC 190 (SC) (M/s National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy and another).
6. On the other hand, it was submitted by the opposite party that he executed the work in the houses of the complainants as per their directions and no amount was ever received by him in excess. The charges for the works so executed by him are more than the amount so paid by the complainants and in order to avoid the payment of those amounts, they filed the present complaint. It cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on his part or that he received any amount in excess.
7. The law as propounded in the above noted judgments will not help the complainants in the present case. In Harjot Ahluwalia's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary court system. The Act being a beneficial legislation intended to confer some speedier remedy on a consumer from being First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 7 exploited by unscrupulous traders. In M. Madhusudhan Reddy's case (supra) it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Act provides an additional remedy to a consumer for the redressal of his grievances. The contention that the complainant had remedy under the Seeds Act and the jurisdiction under the Act is barred is without any merit.
8. There was question of application of the ratio of these judgments in case it had been held by the District Forum that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was held by it that the agreement was insufficiently stamped. The scribe thereof and the attesting witnesses were not examined. The parties were at issue regarding the extent of the work executed by the opposite party and the material to be used and that the complainants spent much more amount for getting the work finished from another contractor. It also observed that all these facts need detailed enquiry for which the parties need to lead elaborate evidence and, as such, the controversy between the parties cannot be resolved in summary manner effectively.
9. The only question to be decided for the disposal of the present appeal is, whether the said findings were correctly recorded by the District Forum. After having gone through the averments of the parties and the evidence produced by them, we have come to the conclusion that those findings were correctly recorded. The following controversies require to be resolved between the parties for the decision of the complaint:-
First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 8
i) Whether the agreement dated 21.1.2012 was voluntary executed by the complainant and is bound by the terms thereof and whether that agreement is admissible?
ii) How much work was executed by the opposite party under the contract and how much amount was payable for the work so executed?
iii) Whether the delay for execution of the work was on account of non-supply of material in time by the complainants or on account of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the opposite party?
iv) Whether the time was the essence of the contract?
v) How much work was got executed by the complainants from other persons and how much money was given to them?
vi) Whether the amounts as mentioned in the written reply of the opposite party are due from the complainants in respect of the work executed by him?
10. All these questions require elaborate evidence for the decision thereof. It is not possible to decide all these questions during the summary proceedings under the Act and elaborate enquiry is required to be held involving the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses for deciding all these questions, which is not possible in the summary proceedings under the Act. In these circumstances, the complainants were correctly relegated by the District Forum to the Civil Court. We do not find any illegality or First Appeal No.124 of 2013. 9 infirmity in that order. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
11. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) January 09, 2014 MEMBER Bansal