Satya Pal Chaddha vs Yagya Narain Sharma

THIS revision petition has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Fora below. In this case, the respondent was the complainant before the District Forum. It is his case that Satish Sharma, Contractor introduced by the petitioner was engaged for boring and installation of submersible pump. As the petitioner found the submersible pump and other equipments to be defective, he filed a complaint before District Forum. District Forum directed the opposite party who is the petitioner before us sought to pay Rs. 45,000 to the complainant besides cost of Rs. 500.

DISTRICT Forum also held that tubewell was defective. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission observed that District Forum had got the tubewell examined by the officer of the Public Health Engineering Department, Rewa who submitted their inspection report. Assistant Engineer of this Department submitted the inspection report which was counter -signed by the Executive Engineer that the well was defective and the motor could not get the tubewell running hence rendering it totally useless. Accordingly, the State Commission held that there was deficiency in service by the petitioner.

THE State Commission further observed that their receipts signed by Sh. Satya Pal Chaddha on 19.5.1994 and 2.6.1994 show that the petitioner has charged from the complainant Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 30,000. The bill for Rs. 25,560 is also filed and proved in evidence. Accordingly, the State Commission dismissed the appeal along with cost of Rs. 500. Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the revision petition before us. When the matter came up for hearing before this Commission for admission this Commission directed that order passed by the Fora below shall remain stayed subject to deposit of half of the awarded amount subsequently, it was brought to the notice of this Commission that 50% of the amount has already been deposited before the State Commission as a pre -condition for hearing the appeal. The complainant was permitted to withdraw this amount as per the direction of this Commission. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that in this case, the petitioner is not to be blamed rather the contractor should have been made responsible for the failure of the tubewell. Sh. Sharma should have been impleaded as one of the parties and if not earlier at least now. Further, he submitted according to the receipt issued by the company on 8.11.1994, it is clear that as against the total bill of Rs. 29,000 for installation of submersible pump Rs. 15,000 was only paid and subsequently the balance amount was to be paid.

FIRSTLY it is too late in the day that the petitioner has made a prayer for impleadment of Satish Sharma. This could have been made in the Fora below. Secondly, there is a letter dated 12.6.1995 stating "Please arrange Vishwakarmaji the country boring machine for Panditji (Satish Sharma) and send the same by the tractor of Thakur of your neighbourhood. If the money for bore is not paid by Panditji then I will pay". We have seen a copy of the receipt wherein the petitioner has received the amount for boring the tubewell and also for the pump which is a clear cut indication that amount for boring the tubewell and the pumpset was received by the petitioner and not by the contractor. Contractor, Sh. Satish Sharma was only an agent and representative of the petitioner is clear from the letter quoted supra.

ACCORDINGL Y , we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Therefore, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.