JAGTAR SINGH vs KIRPAL SINGH

IT is an appeal against the order dated 20.8.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint ar that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was constructing a house in the area of village Ladhewali, Jalandhar and he had a contract with the appellant-O.P. (hereinafter called the O.P.) for making wooden doors and windows. The labour contract for making doors and windows was at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. with all the fittings material of the owner. The O.P. started doing the job from 3rd week of August, 2000 and in the beginning the complainant paid Rs. 2,000/- to the O.P. towards the advance. Thereafter, the O.P. did some work and had been taking the payment in instalments and in total he took Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant but the quantum of job was not in proportionate to the money received by the O.P. On 6.10.2000, the O.P. requested the complainant that his wife was admitted for operation for delivery and for that purpose he required Rs. 10,000/- but it was not true. The complainant gave Rs. 6,000/- to the O.P. which was much beyond the quantity of work done by the O.P. The O.P. assured the complainant that the woodwork would be done in a very short period but in between he absented for 20 days. The O.P. did some work but again requested the complainant that he was in need of money for treatment of his wife and he took a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant on 16.10.2000 and 3.11.2000. Thereafter the O.P. stopped doing work and harassed the complainant. the complainant visited the place of the O.P. three-four times and requested him to continue the job but the O.P. made excuses and did not start the job after 3.11.2000. The complainant had suffered heavily financially as he had to get the job done by the other carpenter at a higher rate of Rs. 22/- per sq. ft. The wooden job of the house was also delayed due to the departure of the O.P. by four months. The complainant was to occupy his house personally and had to spend rent for four months beyond the original schedule. The action of the O.P., according to the complainant, was a deficiency in service on his part for which the complainant had suffered mentally, physically and financially due to the non-completion of the wood-work to be done by the O.P. The complainant had demanded compensation of Rs. 22,000/- for the non-completion of the work and another sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damage alongwith a sum of Rs. 16,000/- for payment of rent against the O.P. O.P. in its reply contradicted the allegations made in the complaint and alleged that as a matter of fact the O.P. was engaged by the complainant as carpenter and he had completed the wood-work of the complainant as per agreement. On the completion of the work, the balance amount of Rs. 20,160/- remained due to be paid by the complainant to the respondent which he promised to pay within a week afterward but he refused to pay the same to the respondent. It is then stated in the reply that after being fed up with the attitude of the complainant, the respondent had filed a complaint with the Labour Inspector of the area and after that he had filed an application in the Labour Court, Jalandhar, under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act which was pending for adjudication. He also demanded Rs. 20,160/- from the complainant for the work done by him. It was denied that any contract was settled at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. with all the fittings and material of the owner. It was also denied that in the beginning the complainant had paid Rs. 2,000/- to the O.P. towards the advance and thereafter he had paid Rs. 6,000/- as alleged by him. It was rather the O.P. who was to get Rs. 20,160/- as the outstanding work done by him. It is stated in the reply that the present complaint is a result of the counter blast to the claim filed in the Labour Court. It was stated in the reply that there was no merit in the complaint and was liable to be dismissed. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and Sqn. Ldr. Kirpal Singh, in person and have gone through the detailed judgment of the District Forum as well as the record of the case with their help. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum.

KIRPAL Singh, complainant, in his affidavit has given the specific dates when he had paid certain amounts to the O.P. He had further stated that he had entered into a contract with the O.P. and he had hired the services of the O.P. for making doors and windows of new building constructed and the rate was fixed at Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. He further stated that the O.P had started the work on 18th August, 2000 and after four months the O.P. never turned back. He had completed only 30% of the total measurement of 700 sq. ft. During this period Rs. 2,000/- was paid on 18.8.2000, in September, 2000 Rs. 10,000 were paid, and on 6.10.2000 Rs. 6000/- were again paid and further Rs. 2,000/- were paid on 16.10.2000 and again Rs. 2,000/- were paid on 3.11.2000. To further support his version there is a affidavit of Amarjit Singh. It is stated in the affidavit that Amarjit Singh was a member of the society of colony Punjab Avenue Ladhewali Road, Jalandhar and he knew KIRPAL Singh, complainant, who had constructed the house in this colony. He had stated that on 8.11.2000, KIRPAL Singh had told him that Jagtar Singh had taken the money in advance on the pretext of his wife being sick but he did not come for work since 4.11.2000. After few days Jagtar Singh met him on the road and he brought him to KIRPAL Singh to talk face to face. Jagtar Singh told him that he could not resume the work due to his domestic problem and agreed that he would pay back the money immediately to KIRPAL Singh which he had taken as an advance from him. He promised to bring the money within an hour and hand over the same to him. But neither he handed over the money to him nor to KIRPAL Singh and also did not resume the work. Ex. C-8 is the affidavit of Chaman Lal. According to him, he was doing the job of carpentry. According to him, on 5.10.2000, Thekedar Jagtar Singh came to him to work for him at the residence of KIRPAL Singh, complainant. He went to him on 6.10.2000 and after taking his test he agreed to pay Rs. 80/- per day as labour in front of Shri KIRPAL Singh. He worked from 6.10.2000 to 4.11.2000 and he was paid Rs. 500/- in instalments. He was told that the contract rate was Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. During this period KIRPAL Singh had paid him i.e., Jagtar Singh, Rs. 6,000/- on 6.10.2000 and Rs. 2,000/- on 16.10.2000 and Rs. 2,000/- on 3.11.2000 in his presence. He further stated that after 4.11.2000 Jagtar Singh had stopped the work there and his version is proved by an affidavit of Chhajju Singh. According to him, on 16.8.2000, he alongwith carpenter Jagtar Singh who was introduced to him by KIRPAL Singh, came to see the wood. After having inspected the wood, the contract between KIRPAL Singh and Jagtar Singh was finalised verbally at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. in his presence and KIRPAL Singh had also paid Rs. 2,000/- as advance to Jagtar Singh. Then there is an affidavit of one Sodhi Ram Ex. C-4. According to him, he was a carpenter by profession and he had been employed by the complainant for making doors and windows. He started the work in December, 2000. Work was incomplete. Only frame of doors and windows was made. He started the work for fixing ply, making konian, safai, fixing of moulding, fitting of doors and windows etc. He completed about 70% of the work and only 30% work was previously done. He had charged Rs. 10,000/- from KIRPAL Singh. In this way, the complainant is supported by four independent witnesses. They proved the version of the complainant that the O.P. Jagtar Singh was employed on contract basis for making doors and windows and the rate was fixed as Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. They too had supported the complainant''s version that he had made advance payment on different dates to the O.P. and he had left the work incomplete and only 30% work was done and after 4th November, 2000, Jagtar Singh never turned up. On the other hand, O.P. had filed the affidavit of one Malkiat Singh, Ex. R-4 who had stated that he was closely related with the parties; O.P. demanded a huge amount from the complainant and in his presence he had agreed to pay Rs. 20,160/- to the O.P. It is then stated in the affidavit that Jagtar Singh had also filed an application before the Labour Court, Jalandhar. District Forum has rightly held that the affidavit filed by Malkiat Singh is vague and does not make any sense. How and why the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 20,160/- to the O.P. has not been explained in the affidavit.

THEN there is affidavit of Jagtar Singh O.P., who has admitted that he was engaged by the complainant as carpenter although he is silent regarding the terms as to whether he was to be paid on daily wages or on contract basis. He has only stressed on one point that Rs. 20,160/- was still due against the complainant which he was not paid for and for which he had filed complaint in the Labour Court, Jalandhar. However, Counsel for the O.P. tried to explain as to how this amount of Rs. 20,160/- has been calculated. According to him, Jagtar Singh worked for 112 days at the rate of Rs. 180/-per day and this amount has not been paid to him by the complainant. The District Forum has rightly held that this line of argument could be looked into as it was beyond the pleadings of the party. In the written statement or in the affidavit of the O.P. it is nowhere stated that respondent had worked for 112 days and Rs. 180/- were to be charged by him per day. In the written statement or in the affidavit of Jagtar Singh, it has not been explained as to how he has calculated Rs. 20,160/- which, according to him, was due from the side of the complainant. He is absolutely silent whether he ever received any money while working in the house of the complainant. In this respect the District Forum has rightly compared the affidavit of the complainant with the affidavit of Jagtar Singh and found the affidavit of the complainant more convincing and appealing to reason and further it was supported by three independent persons who had also given their affidavits in support of the complainant''s version and the contents of those affidavits were not contradicted by the O.P. either by filing any counter-affidavit or otherwise assailing their assertion on oath. Jagtar Singh in his affidavit from the beginning to the end had only denied all the assertions made by the complainant by saying that it was incorrect. It has rightly been held by the District Forum that vague denial is no denial in the eyes of law. If the O.P. had worked on daily wages at Rs. 180/- per day for 112 days then what prevented him from stating this fact in the reply or in the affidavit filed by him; and as to whether he had actually received money from the complainant of those 112 days or not. It is not possible to believe that the O.P. worked for entire 112 days for the complainant without getting any money for the labour done by him. With regard to the filing of the complaint before the Labour Court, the District Forum has dealt with the matter as under : "As regards filing of any complaint before the Labour Court that does not have any effect. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act says that the provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. So if any complaint is pending before the Labour Court between the parties that is a separate issue and has got no relation as far as this complaint is concerned."

Even otherwise it has been brought to our notice and is not denied by the Counsel for the appellant that the complaint was filed by the O.P. before the Labour Court after the filing of the complaint before the District Forum.

IN these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs which are quantified as Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal dismissed with costs.