Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/102/2021

M/s Kindlebit Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Singh Khillan

18 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/102/2021
Date of Institution	:	16/02/2021
Date of Decision	:	18/03/2024

 

M/s Kindlebit Solutions Pvt. Ltd. represented through its Managing Director Sh.B.R.Sharma & having its office at J-7, 2^nd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Phase-1, Chandigarh.

 

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Shree Krishna Enterprises Proprietor Mr.Bhushan Bhardwaj, R/o H.No.490, Sector-61, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Nancy Vashistha, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Kartik Parmod Goyal, Advocate for OP(s).

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is owner of one plot bearing Plot No.I-35, IT City Sector 83 Alpha, Mohali & was constructing an office building on it for its own use and purpose for opening his own entities office for which earlier he was operating from a rented premises. With regards to the same complainant had requirement of iron and steel for construction, as such OP approached the complainant for providing Steel for complainant said project (Annexure C-2 & C-3 respectively). The complainant placed an order of steel as per schedule and the rate agreed between the parties was at Rs.35,400/- PMT before discount and post discount was Rs.34,400/- per metric tonne. The complainant was waiting for his supply of the material, as was conveyed to have been transported by the OP. Thereafter, OP suddenly sent a message to the complainant informing him that the laden trucks on which the material was being supplied to the complainant had gone missing. Hence, considering complainant emergency OP has procured the steel from TATA and that the same will reach at complainant place on that day itself (Annexure C-6). The complainant was surprised to see that both the quantity supplied was short than the ones ordered and even the same was supplied at rates which were never agreed upon, rather on much higher and inflated rates. The supply was deficient by 24.72 MT and the prices were different ranging between 4350/- PMT. to 2350 per MT. In total billing of Rs.9,15,270/- being the difference in the value of the material supplied and the amount given was made, which has not been returned till date inspite of various requests (Annexure C-7 & C-8 colly). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that there was no delay in supply of goods on his part. On receipt of payment in late hours of 24.10.2019 and considering the telephonic calls made by complainant for immediate dispatch of goods, with mutual consent, he procured the ordered goods from TATA Steel on 24.10,2019 vide dated 24.10.2019 for Rs.19,85,865/- and bill dated 25.10.2019 for Rs.11,31,394/- and Bill dated 25.10.2019 for Rs.88,031/- (total amount of goods dispatched was Rs.32,05,290/-) after adjustment of this amount from the advance amount a sum of Rs.5,94,710/- was remaining in our account which was very clearly intimated to Mr.Balak Ram Sharma over phone and was agreed by him. The copies of invoices vide which said goods were delivered to them duly reflects that there was no delay in dispatch of goods on his part as it was well within the aggregated terms and time limit as payment was made on 24.10.2019 and goods were delivered to them on 25.10.2019 (Annexure R-VII, VIII & IX). There is no question of any loss to the complainant by causing delay in delivery as the goods were supplied immediately on 25.10.2019 after getting the payment in his account on 24.10.2019. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that after agreeing to the rates/discounts, OP have failed to supply the quantity as ordered and also the excess money is still remaining with OP, which has not been refunded by him.
7.     On perusal of Annexure C-5 (quotation), it is observed that an additional discount of Rs.1000 PMT has been allowed the OP. On perusal of the correspondence (annexure C-6) of complainant & OP, it is observed that trucks of materials dispatched by OP, did not reach the location of complainant.
8.     The OP has taken a stand that it had to procure the goods from TATA Steel, we are of the view that the same was due to the own fault of the OP and we are of the view that once the rate was agreed, bet, the parties the same cannot be increased arbitrarily by the OP.
9.     Though the complainant has taken a stand that he has paid Rs.39,00,000/- to the OP, but he has not adduced evidence for the same, where in the OP in its reply has concurred the receipt of Rs.38,00,000/- only. Hence, we are of the view that only Rs.38,00,000/- was received by the OP from the complainant.
10.     On perusal of documents, it is observed that the OP has supplied 73.53 MT of steel. The value of the same works out to be Rs.29,84,730/- (Rs.25,29,432 + 18%). The total payment made by the complainant is Rs.38,00,000/- only. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the OP is still holding an amount of Rs.8,15,270/-. By not refunding the same and by not honoring the agreed terms and conditions, OP has indulged in unfair trade practice & is also deficient in providing services.  
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund an amount of ₹8,15,270/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its payment.
2. to pay an amount of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to it.
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
18/03/2024			[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls			Presiding Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member