TRANS ASIA AUTO And GENERAL FINANCE LTD. vs Shiv Bahadur Singh

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that M/s. Trans Asia Auto & General Finance Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the complainant has its office at Kiran Mansion 24/4834, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. The complainant was in need of a three, phase electricity connection with sanctioned load of 20 k.w. The opposite party Mr. Shiv Bahadur Singh was carrying on work as Electrical Engineer and Government approved licenced contractor under the name and style of M/s. Pratap Electric Works. They were also registered with Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU for short). The opposite party undertook to obtain the aforesaid sanctioned load and connection for the complainant''s premises and charged Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 8.6.89. The opposite party, however failed to get the needful done. Instead its started blackmailing the complainant by demanding a further sum of Rs. 40,000/-. The complainant approached D.F.- 1 for refund of the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with adequate compensation. The complaint was contested. On a consideration of the materials before it, the D.F. held that the purpose of hiring the services was illegal namely it was to bribe the staff of DESU to obtain the connection in contravention of the Rules and, therefore, the agreement was void and the same could not be enforced through the agencies created under the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Appearance had been entered by Mr. Parveen, Advocate for the respondents on 30.11.95. Thereafter, however, none appeared for the respondents nor any reply was filed on his behalf. We have heard Mr. M.M. Kalra, Counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

MR. Kalra submitted the electric connection already existed in the complainant premises. The services of the respondents were hired for two things, (i) they were to execute certain works at the premises, and (ii) they were to follow up the case for the sanction of three-phase load of 20 k.w. Instead of carrying out either of the above jobs the respondent started blackmailing the complainant. MR. Kalra also submitted that this was a clear case of un-just enrichment by the respondent and in equity it should not be permitted. MR. Kalra emphasised that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- had not been given to be paid as a bribe because a receipt in writing was duly issued to the respondent. The respondent, it was submitted was a duly licenced contractor and was acquainted with the various technical requirements which were required to be complied with before the desired connection could be sanctioned. He submitted that liaison work was perfectly legal and that the D.F. fell into a grave error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the agreement to help obtain an electric connection was illegal. We have given our deep and anxious consideration to the submissions of MR. Kalra and we find force in them. The main plea of the respondent before the D.F. was that he had given an estimate of Rs. 50,000/- for the work to be carried out and had received Rs. 10,000/- as advance and the complainant had failed to pay the balance amount. The record further shows that the respondent had issued in his own hand writing and signature a receipt regarding Rs. 10,000/- on 8.6.89 which reads as under: "We are in receipt of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) against load sanction for three phase connection. In case of any circumstances job is not done. We will return the said money. Time required for the job will be two months".

A basic reading of the above receipt leaves no doubt that Rs. 10,000/- had not been received as part payment but it was full payment for the services to be rendered by the respondent. Admittedly no service has been rendered. This is a clear case of un-just enrichment and the same cannot be permitted. For these reasons, we allow the appeal set aside the order of the D.F. and direct the respondent to pay Rs. 10,000/- with 18% p.a. interest from 8.6.89 till date of refund. He shall also pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties as well as D.F.-I. Appeal allowed with costs.