DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.572/2009
ARVIND TREOHAN
A-6, Ansal Villas,
Satbari, New Delhi
India-74
….Complainant
Versus
V.S KUKREJA & ASSOCIATES P. LTD
165 A, Gautam Nagar,
New Delhi-110049
Through Its Proprietor
M/s Amptech Electric India Pvt Ltd
B-112, Chittranjan Park,
New Delhi-110019
Through its Director
Also at:
Plot No.40, Sector 31,
Greater Noida, U.P. .... Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 21.07.2009
Date of Order : 21.04.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi
Complainant has put in a claim for the refund of Rs.3,76,087/- alongwith interest @18%p.a. towards supplying of the inferior quality of goods; payment of Rs.5,25,509/- for engaging another contractor for rectifying the work done; payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental harassment, agony etc; Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges.
The facts leading to the case are that the Complainant had contacted V. S. Kukreja and Associates Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as OP-1) for rendering the consultancy services for the design and installation of electrical equipments at his residence at A-6, Ansal Villas, Satbari, New Delhi. Pursuant to this, the OP-1, upon the design so referred above, contacted M/s Amptech Electric India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as OP-2) for manufacturing and supplying of electrical equipment (L.T. Panels). Accordingly, OP-2 gave quotations to OP-1 dated 02.08.2007, 25.07.2006 and 08.10.2007. These are exhibited as Annexure-‘1’. OP-1 introduced OP-2 to the Complainant for the work assigned as mentioned above. The Complainant made payments on the basis of agreed schedule of quantities. When the installation was completed, the OP-1 after inspection, gave clearance to the specific L. T. Panels. After some time, these panels started giving troubles. It was alleged by the Complainant that during the supply of specific L. T. Panels, the OP-2 with the consensus of OP-1 had replaced agreed key electrical components with the inferior quality components. There was huge price difference between agreed electrical component and products and the supplied and installed ones.
These installed components did not perform satisfactorily, thereafter numerous complaints were made to the OPs. The OP-2 did not take notice and deliberately avoided and took the premise of non-availability of materials. As such, the deficiency in service. Left with no option, the Complainant had to engage another contractor for rectifying the work done by OP-2 and thereby incurred additional huge cost towards the same. Payment so made to third contractor is exhibited at Annexure-‘4’.
On the other hand, OP-1 is the consulting engineer and rendering his services regarding design, and installation of electrical equipments. The terms and conditions on which the delivery/supply of L. T. Panels and other electrical component were specifically made as per design prepared by him and cleared only after having approval of the Complainant. The Complainant never raised any objection regarding quality and performance of L. T. Panels up to January, 2009 as averred by the OP-1. Meanwhile the Complainant negotiated third contractor directly with the consent of OP-2, not through OP-1. The Complainant also failed to pay outstanding dues of Rs.56,180/- alongwith interest to OP-1 and a letter dated 28.03.2008 was sent to Complainant and exhibited as OP-1/1.
OP-1 also alleges that the Complainant wrote to third contractor and wanted to carry out the modification in the electrical system as was revealed by agreement dated 04.03.2009. OP-1 also stated that the OPs will stand guarantee of 12 months from the date of supply. There was no consent of the OP-1 for replacement of electrical component rather it was changed with the knowledge and approval of the Complainant. It is a fact that the manufacturer was taking undue time for the specified items and alternate was suggested but the Complainant wanted the material of “Siemen” make only. The OP-2 was given choice of providing a 3 pole MCCB with a 4 Pole contractor with inter-connecting cabling in place of 4 Pole EOMCCB. It is stated that alternate arrangement was more expensive than the specified one. The Complainant did not agree to the increase. OP-2 was costed of approx. Rs.60,000/- extra.
It is also averred that the provision of Aluminum Bus Bar in the main panel in place of tin coated solid Copper Bus Bar was made. Though the contractor quoted all the panels of Copper Bus Bar as per document filed by the Complainant, but during negotiation, it was agreed to allow one panel of Aluminum Bus Bar in the main but other small panel will be Copper Bus Bar. Based on this deviation, the contactor i.e. OP-2 reduced his earlier quoted rates. It was exhorted by the OP-1 that the equipments were working very well after the supply in 2006 and no complaint was lodged during the one year of guarantee by the Complainant.
Additional services in addition to agreed one were also provided by the OP-1. OP-1 also stated that in 2005, OP-1 was asked to provide a scheme based on two supplies (11KW Meter), 2DG Sets of 100 KVA and one DG Set of 20 KVA - to be on manual operation. But in 2006, scheme was revised and made automatic and above scheme was also revised in 2007. As per averments of OP-1, OP-2 refused to carryout additional work without additional charges. The Complainant had said that payment was made to third contractor for the said revised scheme but it was for modifying the main panel to accept single meter in place of previous three meter supply which is beyond the scope of said work as mentioned by OP-1.
OP-2 also stated that the alternative equipment costed him additionally Rs.50,000/-. The OP-2 had shown the chart of prices for equipments installed or the agreed one which shows the difference of Rs.53,202/- the same was borne by the OP additionally. Further, the OP-2 has mentioned additional work, which was not mentioned in BOQ and costed OP-2 approx. Rs.91,746.50/-.
OP-2 also averred that the successful trial of main panel of manual mode was carried in the presence of representatives of OP-1 and Complainant. Burning of meter was due to incompetence of operator of Complainant not due to failure of system. OP-2 sent proper reply and it was averred that why the said problem of LT Panel was lodged prior to letter dated 23.01.2009 after a lapse of 2½ years. OP-2 has also exhorted that 1st order of LT Panels was placed in October, 2006 and it was continuously in use from October, 2006 to January, 2009 and no complaint was reported to OP-2 about the failure of LT Panels. Second order was placed on 02.09.2007 (after the 14 months from the date of 1st order). Third order was placed on 08.10.2007 (after 15 months from the date of 1st order). OP-2 further added that he was in touch with Complainant during this entire period and requested to release the balance payment of Rs.7,08,420/-. The Complainant prepared some modification in December, 2008 but OP-2 refused and requested again to clear the outstanding dues of Rs.7,08,420/-. The work done by third contractor does not pertain to rectifying the work done by OP-2 but it was a new one.
The OP-2 also maintained that the LT Panels were supplied in October, 2006 and instant complaint should have been filed within the period of two years from the date of October, 2006. Hence, the same is beyond limitation.
All the parties have filed evidence by way of affidavits and written submissions. Rejoinders are also on record so is the written statements. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
The material placed on record and pleadings have been gone through carefully. As regards to limitation, both the OPs have raised the objection on the fact of limitation. The Complainant categorically stated that last order of the work as placed in October, 2007 and cause of action was continuing so the complaint is found to have been filed within the prescribed limit. Hence, the objection is not sustainable. As regards to the guarantee was for 12 months. It was evidenced by adducing the letter dated 25.07.2006 at Annexure ‘1’(Colly). The Complainant vide its reply, mentioned that when the fact of completion of construction was brought to the notice of OPs that construction of the subject house shall take 18 months in completion, then, the OPs gave verbal assurances that they will stand guarantee of 12 months from the date of commissioning rather than date of supply of equipment. Since, it is a verbal commitment only. The OP-1 has also annexed the rate of Siemens with respect to these electrical equipments vis-à-vis, cost impact with reference to the quoted rates of the OP-2. The OP-1 has also annexed a letter dated 28.03.2008 depicting its consultation fees and outstanding dues against the complainant. This issue has not been negated by the Complainant. There are some moot points where the complainant laid emphasis for establishing the deficiency in service for not rectifying the defects in these installations/equipments.
It is also noticed that OP-1 was responsible for development of design and consultancy for installation of electrical equipments. In a way, installation was to be supervised by the OP-1 and its staff. At one stage, the OP-1 suggested the Complainant to engage the person of having some electrical skill in place of his guard. By this time, the Complainant never questioned the lack of any supervisory/consultancy.
In view of this, this Commission feels convinced that the OP-1 has discharged its onus of duty.
It was also noted that some equipment were not manufactured in time and some alternate was suggested by the OP-1 and OP-2 and the same was agreed upon on negotiation with the Complainant. By this time, there appears no dispute on alternate arrangement. It was stated by the OPs that till last supply in October, 2007 or even upto later date, no complaint was registered with OPs with respect to performance etc. However, the Complainant engaged third contactor without the knowledge of OP-1 who was rendering consultancy service. The OP also placed reliance on the evidence i.e. copy of agreement dated March, 2008 agreed upon between Sh. Amit Singh Trehan for installation of electrical installation at A-‘6’, Ansal Form House, Satbari, New Delhi and Nutech Contractor and Electrical System (P) Ltd. The work of description i.e. Scope of work is also looked into where either modification in various installation or supplying and laying is mentioned. Further retail-invoice raised by Nutech contractor is also look into where there is hardly any entry for repair. Modification cannot be substituted for the repair work. Modification has certainly different connotation.
In nutshell, it is evaluated that some installation might have given troubles which OP-2 has not attended to. In view of the fact and circumstances of the case, this Commission feels that there is some degree of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP-2. Accordingly, this Commission directs OP-2 to grant Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the Complainant within three months from the date of this order failing which rate of interest shall be levied @9% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization. OP-1 has discharged its commitment toward Complainant successfully and accordingly discharged from its liability.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.
