AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
REVISION Petition No. 20 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 23.11.95 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which confirmed the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Delhi in Complaint No. 1575/92. The REVISION Petitioner before us was the appellant before the State Commission and complainant before the District Forum.
THE complainant entered into a contract with the opposite party for carrying out wood Work in her flat in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi in April, 1990 involving an expenditure of Rs. 40,000/- and paid Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party as advance on 7.4.90 at the commencement of the work. THE opposite party worked only upto May ''90 and then promised to resume the work after sometime. By July ''90 the opposite party is alleged to have received Rs. 27,400/- as advance payment but did not resume the work. As the work under the contract was not completed, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum praying that a direction be given to the opposite party to immediately resume and complete the work in terms of the contract and also claimed Rs. 24,590/- by way of compensation. THE opposite party admitted having received Rs. 24,000/- in driblets and stated that he had carried out the work worth Rs. 29,000/- which included some additional work, not covered by the original contract, worth Rs. 15,000/-. He also stated that his tools and wood belonging to him worth Rs. 4 to 5 thousand were lying iii the complainant''s flat and that he could not complete the work as the balance payment was not made to him. The District Forum held that though there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party a direction could not be given to the opposite party to resume and complete the work in terms of the contract because the complainant had already lost confidence in the opposite party. The District Forum further said that no Vakil, Commissioner or Engineer could be appointed to assess the value of work already done because neither party was willing to pay for the expenses. After assessing the claim of the complainant for compensation, the District Forum awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of proceedings and directed the complainant to return the tools and the wood belonging to the opposite party after recovering the aforesaid amount.
The complainant preferred an appeal against this order before the State Commission. The respondent/opposite party failed to appear, inspite of notice, before the State Commission. In their order passed ex-parte the Commission observed that no prayer was made by the appellant/complainant for the appointment of a Local Commissioner and that in the absence of a satisfactory determination of the value of the work already carried out, it was not possible to proceed further to determine the amount, if any, which might be due to the complainant. The State Commission also relied upon Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and observed that the present contract cannot be specifically enforced and the respondent cannot be directed to complete the unfinished work. In the result, the Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant.
AGGRIEVED by the dismissal of the appeal, the complainant filed the Revision Petition before us. We have heard the parties in person and perused the records. The District Forum had afforded an opportunity to the complainant for appointing a Local Commissioner but the complainant did not agree. In our opinion, the District Forum in the facts and circumstances of the case had adequately compensated the complainant on the basis of records before it and the State Commission had rightly upheld the order of the District Forum. The plea of the Revision Petitioner is that reference to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is not relevant as the provisions of Section 14 of the CP Act lays down the law for non-performance. Section 14(1) of the CP Act has empowered the District Forum to issue an order to the opposite party for one or more relief''s specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (i) thereof, and the impugned order of the District Forum falls under the Sub-clauses (d) and (i). We, therefore, do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the impugned order. The Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs. Revision petition dismissed.