Pratul Kumar Garg vs Mahesh Kumar Alias Chunni

Anup K. Thakur, J

This Revision Petition No. 2782 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner-M/s Pratul Kumar Garg (hereinafter OP) against the order of the State Commission dated 4.7.2018 in Appeal No.905 of 2016. Vide this order, the State Commission had dismissed the appeal filed by the OP and upheld the order of the District Forum. The District Forum, vide order dated 07.04.2016 in C.C. No.116 of 2015 filed by the respondent-Mahesh Kumar alias Chunni (hereinafter complainant) against the OP, had allowed the complaint and ordered the OP to pay Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant within 60 days along with 6% interest as well as a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

Briefly, facts of the case are as follows. On 04.02.2014, the complainant sought to purchase 25000 bricks required for extension of his house and shop from the OP. He was asked to deposit Rs.1,25,000/- with his clerk being the cost of bricks @ Rs. 5,000/- per 1000 bricks including transportation. He did so in cash and obtained a receipt (no.419 dated 04.02.2014). When the bricks were not delivered within a week as agreed, the complainant went to the OP kiln on 30.12.2014 and asked for refund of his money. Allegedly, the OP and his workers misbehaved with him and refused to give him either the bricks or the money. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Shahjahanpur seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss suffered by him and Rs.1,25,000/- as cost of bricks already paid by him and Rs.10,000/- towards advocate fees.

This complaint was contested by a written reply on behalf of the OP. The OP denied a visit by the complainant on 04.02.2014. He further denied that he had ever talked to the complainant in respect of purchase of bricks or had asked the complainant to deposit the money with his clerk or that his clerk had given him a receipt. In short, the OP denied everything in the complaint. As for receipt no.419 dated 04.02.2014, the OP submitted that this was a conspiracy hatched by the complainant with the help of his clerk-Ram Das, and that his clerk Ram Das had committed fraud, and that FIR No. 50/2015 under Section 406, 420, 506 IPC dated 05.02.2015 had been filed with the Police Station, Sehramau Dakshini. On this basis, the OP argued that the claim was suspicious and fraudulent and should be dismissed.

The District Forum, after considering the arguments of both the parties and examining the evidence put forth, allowed the complaint. It's reasoning was that there was no doubt that the clerk Sh. Ram Dass was in the employ of the OP and was in-charge of the OP Kiln. Therefore, the payment of Rs.1,25,000/- is easily understood. The FIR filed with the Police Station was on 05.02.2015. The FIR indeed was about the fraudulent activity of Sh. Ram Das. On this basis, it is easily concluded that the clerk must have received Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant for bricks. As Sh. Ram Dass was a clerk working for the OP and the OP had produced no evidence to show that the bricks were sent to the complainant and as receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- was genuine, the complainant had the right to get his money back.

The State Commission upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the order passed by the District Forum was just. The State Commission also reasoned that Ram Dass was the clerk of the OP and receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- was indeed issued by him though this fact was denied by the OP. The OP's argument that the complainant and his clerk had connived, making him file FIR before the PS, cannot save him from the liability. The logic is that even if the clerk Sh. Ram Dass committed a fraud, the OP was his employer and would be vicariously liable.

We have heard the counsels for the petitioner/OP and gone through the record.

Admitted facts are few. The complainant did obtain a receipt of Rs.1,25,000/- from the clerk of the OP towards purchase of bricks. This is not denied by the OP. The contention of the OP is that his clerk committed a fraud on him and that therefore he filed an FIR against him with the police and that the case is under investigation. He also alleged that there must have been conspiracy between the complainant and his clerk. However, the same could not be established by producing evidence before either of the Fora below.

We agree with the well-reasoned orders of the State Commission and the District Forum. Whether the clerk was a fraud or a cheat, he was still employee of the OP. As an employee of the OP, he indulged in a transaction with the complainant which is clearly evidenced by the receipt dated 4.2.2014. The petitioner/OP cannot disown this act of its own employee and was liable for either supply of the bricks or refund of the money. Since he did neither, a deficiency in service is easily established.

In view of the discussion above, we see no reason in exercising of our revisionary powers to interfere with the impugned order of the State Commission. The State Commission's order is accordingly upheld. Consequently, the order of the District Forum is also upheld. No order as to costs.