ROOPESH KUMAR VERMA vs K.K. TAILORS

THIS appeal is barred by limitation by 60 days. The explanation offered by the appellant is that he could come to know of the impugned order only on 9.8.2002 and thereafter he filed the appeal on 20.8.2002. The appellant was duly represented before the Forum through his Counsel Shri Narendra Pareek. It was for the appellant to have remained in contact with the Counsel and to have known about the progress of his complaint from him. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered for filing the appeal late. However, since the respondent complainant has also filed his Appeal No. 731/2002 for enhancement of the amount of compensation, we felt inclined to hear both the parties on merits. Delay of 60 days in Appeal No. 1050/2002 is, therefore, condoned and both the appeals are disposed of by this common order.

THE case of Roopesh Kumar Verma, the complainant in his complaint was that on 19.11.1999 he had delivered a suit length to the respondent K.K. Tailors for preparing a suit. THE respondent had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,800/- from him as stitching charges and he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to him as advance. THE suit was to be delivered to him on 2.12.1999 but the same was not delivered to him on that date. On 7.12.1999 the suit was offered to him by the respondent but that had not been properly stitched and, therefore, the complainant did not receive such suit. THE respondent had promised to deliver the suit to him after making necessary modification therein. But the respondent did neither deliver the suit nor return his amount. The D.F. vide its order under appeal accepted the version of the complainant and required the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,400/- to him with interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.11.1999.

The complainant has come to the Commission for enhancement of the compensation awarded. The respondent, on the other hand, has prayed for cancellation of the said order on the ground that the suit had been duly delivered to the complainant and that he had not charged a sum of Rs. 1,800/- from him as advance. His case was that his labour charges to be paid by the complainant were agreed at Rs. 1,000/- in respect of which the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 400/- only with him as advance money.

IT is found that in support of his version the complainant had filed the cash memo dated 17.11.1999 purchasing the suit length for Rs. 2,000/- from M/s. Purushottam Cloth Store, Jaipur. There is no evidence in rebuttal to this cash memo, save the denial of the respondent. Such denial is unsupported and is not based on any personal knowledge. IT is, therefore, held that the complainant had purchased a suit length on 17.11.1999 for Rs. 2,000/- from M/s. Purushottam Cloth Store, Jaipur. In support of his case that he had delivered the suit length for being stitched to the respondent, the complainant had filed receipt No. 1411 dated 19.11.1999 issued by the respondent to him evidencing the delivery of the suit length to be stitched. A Jodhpuri suit was to be stitched. The receipt shows that the stitching charges, as agreed between the parties were Rs. 1,800/- against which the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,400/-. The complainant was to pay Rs. 400/- at the time of receiving the suit duly stitched, on 2.12.1999.

THE case of the respondent is that in fact stitching charges were agreed at Rs. 1,000/- only against which he had received Rs. 400/- as advance money. THE version of the case as put forth by the respondent is not supported by the entries made in the receipt issued by him. In view of the above it is proved that the complainant had delivered a suit length worth Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent and had further paid a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to him as stitching charges. It is also proved that the respondent had not either returned the aforesaid amount to him or redelivered the suit length or the stitched suit. In the result, the impugned order is modified in this manner that instead of Rs. 2,400/-, the respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,400/- to the appellant with interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.11.1999. The impugned order shall stand modified accordingly.

THE appeal of the Complainant No. 731/2002 is allowed but the appeal of the respondent No. 1050/2002 is dismissed. Cost on parties. Ordered accordingly.