Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

17/2013

M/s. International Maritime Academy, rep. by Managing Director, J.Senthil Kumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Alfa Enviro Systems, rep. by Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Mcgan law Firm

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  06.12.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

    FRIDAY THE 30^th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.17/2013

 

 

M/s. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ACADEMY,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Mr.J.Senthilkumar,

No.41, Giri Road, T.Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs.

M/s. ALFA ENVIRO SYSTEMS,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.27/10, Gandhi Street,

Jaganatha Nagar, 1^st Main Road,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.01.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.McGAN LAW FIRM

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s.K.Martin Arokiaraj &

                                                               N. Santhosh Nagarajan     

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund a sum of Rs.1,24,495/- for the loss incurred by him for rearranging STP along with discharge line in his academy and also compensation for non- fulfillment of terms and conditions of the contract and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party approached the Complainant herein fully acquainted with the intention of the Complainant in installing Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter referred to as STP) along with discharge lines surrounding its academy campus. The Opposite Party placed its quotation along with the design and assured best output of their work with respect to implementation of Sewage Treatment Plant along with discharge lines surrounding the Complainant’s Academic Campus. After perusing the same and upon the assurance given by the Opposite Party to satisfy the requirement of the Complainant, the Complainant accepted the offer made by the Opposite Party. The Complainant had also paid the  entire payment to the Opposite Party as demanded by the Opposite Party with respect to the installation of Sewerage Treatment Plants in the following manner:-

 

 

1. Cheque No.2778895 dated 15.07.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
2. Cheque No.653250 dated 15.07.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
3. Cheque No.220712dated 17.08.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-
4. Cheque No.667853 dated 23.09.2011 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

and also paid an advance of Rs.2,60,000 vide, cheque No.653251 dated 14.07.2011  out  of the total value of Rs.3,82,500/- to the Opposite Party with respect to the discharge lines for the STP as per the Offer Letter dated 17.06.2011.

2. As per the terms of the confirmed order, the Opposite Party has to complete the project of erection of STP within 90 days from the date of confirmed order. After the completion of the STP, the Complainant found that the quality of the treated water has not met the specification offered by the Opposite Party. Inspite of making payment, as stated above, the Opposite Party has not laid the entire pipelines and also left the laying of pipes in the middle. Due to the said action of the Opposite Party, the pipes that were kept idle without proper laying, has got damaged and become unusable. The Opposite Party by its e-mail dated 15.02.2012, has agreed to relay the pipelines at the places where the damage has occurred. The Opposite Party has further agreed to complete the entire project before 29.02.2012. But the Opposite Party failed to do so and the pipes were lying without any use despite spending a huge amount on the said project by the Complainant. Due to the dereliction of service by the Opposite Party, as mentioned above, the Complainant suffered huge monetary loss.

          3. The Complainant caused a notice dated 22.06.2012 through its lawyer to the Opposite Party. Since there was no reply to the legal notice and failure to complete the work, the students of the Complainant’s academy conducted protest against the management of the Complainant’s academy. The Complainant was constrained to entrust the work of implementing the STP and its appurtenance with M/s. H2O Engineering Solutions, having its registered office at No.52/4, 1^st Floor, Perumal Kovil Garden Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106, as the same is essential and warranted immediate functioning to avoid inconvenience to the students of the Complainant’s academy and also for the day to day activities of the Complainant’s academy. The Complainant had so far spent a sum of 1,24,495/- apart from the maintenance charge of Rs.89,000/- in addition to the payment made to the Opposite Party for rearranging the STP along with the discharge pipelines. In addition the work of installation of RO Plant in the Complainant’s academy and installation of swimming pool equipments was also entrusted with the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party gave reply notice dated 19.02.2012 with some lame reason to escape from his liability. Therefore the Opposite Party have committed deficiency in service and hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to refund a sum of Rs.1,24,495/- for the loss incurred by him for rearranging STP along with discharge line in his academy and also compensation for non- fulfillment of terms and conditions of the contract and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party states that the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for installing Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and only on request form the Complainant the Opposite Party sent an offer letter dated 12.07.2010 and no formal purchase order or agreement was entered into with the Opposite Party. The basic design of STP was designed by Chennai Water Supply & Sewerage Board (CWSSB) and not by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party states that the STP equipment and installation was agreed to be modified according to the  CWSSB’s design, but it was clearly clarified that no guarantee could be given for the design and its working, as the same was not designed by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party did not recommend and the guarantee could only be given to the STP equipment supplied and it was out of the Complainant’s own notion it was agreed for the installation and supply and on that condition only further supply of the STP equipment and its accessories was done by the Opposite Party and warrantee  for a period of one year was extended to the STP equipment.

5. The Opposite Party states that totally three different nature of works were assigned to this Opposite Party namely.

1. Supply and Erection of Sewerage Treatment with the Discharge Pipelines as auxiliary work.

 

2. Supply of Reverse Osmosis Plant Membrane and other parts &

 

3. Supply of Swimming Pool Equipments, installation and commissioning. This Complaint filed pertaining to the fast work.

 

The Opposite Party states that the price for STP was agreed between  the Complainant   and him is for a sum of Rs.18,20,000/- and out of the said amount he paid Rs.18,00,000/- and due to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-. As requested by the Complainant, the Opposite Party gave quotation for laying discharge pipe for the supply of pump panel, and pipes on 17.06.2011 and the price agreed was at Rs.3,82,000/-. But the Complainant accepted only for pipes. In respect of pipes the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and he is due to pay a sum of Rs.91,375/- and in   respect of maintenance for STP and RO plant out of Rs.1,59,032/- a sum of Rs.90,000/- was paid and a sum of Rs.69,032/- is due for payment. It was agreed that the STP will be installed within 90 days from the acceptance and as per the Complainant’s acceptance and payment of advance, the Opposite Party supplied the STP equipment at the premises of the Complainant and on various occasions the Opposite Party approached the Complainant for installation and erection of the STP and Complainant delayed the construction of the building and infrastructure in the premises and due  to which the installation and erection of the STP could not be started and even after starting on numerous occasion it was asked to be stopped by the Complainant for completing the infrastructure and installation and erection of STP was permitted to be done in piece-meal basis by the Complainant and even when the Opposite Party had intimated about the difficulties faced in piece-meal installations and the STP equipments were kept unused for a long time.  

6. The Opposite Party states that quotation dated 21.09.2011 was offered to the Complainant for supply of onsite operation manager and supervisor and accepted the offer for operation manager for STP, RO plants and Bore Wells and subsequently the Complainant has failed to pay for the maintenance work and for the man power and stopped the man power supplied by the Opposite Party and the Complainant self operated the STP with own man power without any technical qualification and there by caused the menace. The Opposite Party states that even the payment was belated due to stoppage of the installation and erection of STP at the premises inspite of the supplying the STP and only after a year the offer for discharge lines were sought for and offer dated 17.06.2011, it was agreed for laying 1500 meters of pipe though 1000 meters have already been laid in and around the compound wall of the premises and supplied for the 500 meters of pipe were delivered, it could not be completed as the Complainant did not complete the construction work and further Complainant delayed the laying without showing the plan for the discharge and asking to wait for the completion of the infrastructure. The Opposite Party had categorically replied on 19.07.2012 to the legal notice dated 22.06.2012 of the Complainant that he is willing to lay the remaining 500 meters pipe line once the place for laying is finalized.  The Opposite Party denies that allegation regarding the quality of the treated water from the STP and moreover the quality of the water was tested after installation of the STP and the Complainant is now finding fault with the quality only for the purpose of this Complaint and only due to own accord of not maintaining the STP with technical staff. The Opposite Party denies the allegation that STP did not function as per the specification in the offer as after completion of the installation of the STP inspite of the delay by the Complainant was successful and worked fine and when the Complainant had failed to pay the maintenance charges for the STP and continued to operate the STP with own man power without any technical knowledge. The Opposite Party sent a proper reply to the notice sent by the Complainant. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. This Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party for installation of  Sewerage Treatment Plant (Hereafter will be called as STP) in his academy   and the Opposite Party also agreed to supply the product and also to install the same by the Opposite Party and sent Ex.A1 offer letter to the Complainant with details of the product and Ex.B2 letter is the acceptance of the Complainant offer made by the Opposite Part and the Opposite Party sent Ex.B4 invoice for a sum of Rs.18,20,000/- sent to the Complainant for the supply of equipments, piping and electrical work and also running for a period of three months and the Complainant made payment of Rs.18,00,000/- through Ex.A2, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 by way of cheque on various dates and paid a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.

          9. The Opposite Party commenced the work as per the Ex.A1 offer letter given by him with different types of work to be carried out by him. However, admittedly the entire work was not completed by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party quoated the amount in Ex.B4 including supply of material and to carryout work for a sum of Rs.18,20,000/-.  The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- to the Opposite Party through bank transactions.  

10. The Opposite Party during arguments submitted that the Complainant is still due a sum of Rs.20,000/- to him and further the Civil work was not completed by the Complainant as agreed by him enabling the Opposite Party to complete the work. As contended by the Opposite Party, since the Complainant has not completed the civil work he was unable to complete the work in time.  According to the Complainant since the work was not completed, the Complainant has to engage H2O Engineering Solutions to complete the work and for the same he paid a sum of Rs.1,24,495/-  and therefore the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

11. Ex.A10 quotation given by the H2O Engineering Solutions for an amount of Rs.1,24,495/- for repairing certain item of work mentioned therein. The said quotation addressed to the Complainant has not been filed in full form. There is no signature of the authority for H2O Engineering Solutions in Ex.A10. Therefore, Ex.A10 cannot be a proof for the completion of work done by the Complainant.  

12. Furthermore, the Complainant is due a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the Opposite Party as per Ex.B5  contains the agreed amount by the Complainant.  The Complainant, a Consumer who has defaulted in payment of part amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Opposite Party and he had also not completed the civil work in time enabling the Opposite Party to complete the work proves that the Complainant  is only  a defaulter. Therefore a defaulter Consumer cannot fasten liability on the part of the Opposite Party. In view of such conclusion we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.  

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 12.07.2010                   Offer letter from the Opposite Party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 17.07.2010                   ICICI Bank statement for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

                                                    by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 17.06.2011                   Offer letter from the Opposite Party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 18.07.2011                   ICICI Bank Statement for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

                                                    and Rs.5,00,000/- by the Complainant to the

                                                    Opposite Party

  

Ex.A5 dated 23.08.2011                   ICICI Bank Statement for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

                                                    by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 26.09.2011                   ICICI Bank Statement for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-

                                                    by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A7 dated 15.02.2012                   E-mail of the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A8 dated 22.06.2012                   Legal Notice along with the postal

                                                    acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A9 dated 19.07.2012                   Reply notice through lawyer from the Opposite

                                                    Party

 

Ex.A10 dated 05.11.2012                 Quotation of M/s H2O Engineering Solutions

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 12.07.2010                   Quotation by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B2 dated 15.07.2010                   Letter of acceptance from the Complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated 17.06.2011                   E-mail to the Complainant with Quotation for

                                                    pipes

 

Ex.B4 dated NIL                     Invoice – Supply & Commissioning, pipe Lines

                                                    (Series)

 

Ex.B5 dated 21.09.2011                   Quotation for operation & Maintenance

 

Ex.B6 dated NIL                     Invoice – operation & Maintenance pending

                                                    payment Bills (Series)

 

Ex.B7 dated 22.06.2012                   Legal Notice from the Complainant

 

Ex.B8 dated 19.07.2012                   Reply by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B9 dated NIL                     Statement of pending payments from the

                                                    Complainant

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT