Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

18/2013

M/s.International Maritime Academy, rep. by managing Director, J.Senthi kumar, a - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. alfa Enviro Systems, rep. by Mangaing 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.18/2013

 

 

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.Mc.GAN 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 pay a sum of Rs.2,21,050/-  to him and  also compensation for deficiency in service 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 swimming pool equipments to its Complainant’s academy and introduced themselves as experts in the field of swimming pool equipments. The Opposite Party placed its quotation along with the design and assured best output of their work with respect to the work installing swimming pool equipments. The Complainant accepted the offer made by the Opposite Party. The Complainant paid an advance of Rs.7,00,000/- vide. Cheque No.092885, dated 04.05.2011, drawn on SBI, for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  and cheque No.220779, dated 26.08.2011, drawn on ICICI, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total contract value of Rs.13,00,000/-, as per the Agreement and offer letter dated 28.02.2011. The Opposite Party despite of receiving the advance payment of Rs.7,00,000/- they have not fulfilled the contract that they have entered into with the Complainant rather the Opposite Party have left the work incomplete.

2. The Complainant inspite of spending a huge amount was constrained to send their students outside centers for giving training in swimming which is mandatory in the course of study and had spent a sum of Rs.96,050/- which is evident from the receipts of YMCA college of physical Education. Due to the dereliction of service by the Opposite Party, as mentioned above, the Complainant suffered huge monetary loss. In the meantime the Opposite Party withdrew its labourers and workmen all of a sudden without informing the management of the petitioner’s academy. The Complainant caused a notice dated 22.06.2012 through his lawyer to the Opposite Party pointing out the above deficiencies. The Complainant was constrained to entrust the work of installing swimming pool equipments with M/s. H₂O Engineering Solutions. The Complainant gave reply notice dated 19.07.2012 with some lame reasons to escape from its liability. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,050/-  to him and  compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with cost of the Complaint. 

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for installing swimming pool equipments and only on request from the Complainant, the Opposite Party sent an offer letter dated 13.12.2010 to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.13,52,000/-, but the Complainant delayed the acceptance stating construction work in the premises. The Complainant accepted the offer dated 28.02.2011 of the Opposite Party. The Swimming pool was designed by the Complainant’s Architect and not by the Opposite Party. The price for Swimming Pool Equipments was agreed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for Rs.13,52,000/- by offer dated 28.02.2011.  The Complainant has paid the amounts in respect of the Swimming Pool work is as follows.

 

 

 

 

INVOICE			PAYMENT DETAIL			PENDING PAYMENT
DATE	NO	AMOUNT	DATE	MODE	AMOUNT
25.05.2012	03	13,52,000	15.07.11   27.08.11	Cheque No.653250 Cheque No.220779	5,00,000   2,00,000
Total                        13,52,000					7,00,000	6,52,000

 

It was agreed that the Swimming Pool work will be completed within 45 days and the Complainant delayed the payment and kept on holding from the initial offer and delayed the construction of infrastructure and finally on 15.07.2011, initial payment was made and though the Complainant did not pay 50%  as agreed towards advance, the Complainant demanded for the equipment and the Opposite Party supplied the equipment on 16.08.2011 and on 27.08.2011 another  part payment towards advance was made by the Complainant as stated earlier in the table and the 30% payment after supply of the equipments as agreed was not made though even after the supply of the equipments.

4. On various occasions the Opposite Party approached the Complainant for installation of the Swimming Pool Equipment and the Complainant delayed the construction of the building and infrastructure in the premises and due to which the installation of the Swimming Pool Equipment could not be started and even after starting on numerous occasions, it was asked to be stopped by the Complainant for completing the infrastructure and installation of Swimming Pool Equipment was  permitted to be done in piece-meal basis by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has caused delay in the work and the same is invented only for the purpose of this case and escaping from the balance payment. Even for commissioning the Complainant never intimated the Opposite Party of any specific day for commissioning and never bothered  to pay the Opposite Party the balance amount pending for the work and due to which the escalation in prices of labour in installation and commissioning work have to be borne by the Opposite Party and the Complainant. The Complainant never co-operated in completion  and was delaying the installation due to the infrastructure development in the premises and tiles laying in the pool, due to which the Opposite Party have to do the work of installation on piece meal basis, which caused loss to the Opposite Party.

5. The Complainant has sent a legal notice dated 22.06.2012 for which the Opposite Party has replied by notice dated 19.07.2012. The Complainant had entrusted the work with H₂O Engineering Solutions and the averment regarding protests by the students was against the Complainant for admitting the students without completion of the infrastructure in the premises was only at the fault of the Complainant. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint with exemplary cost.

6. 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?

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party agreed to supply Swimming pool Equipments to the Complainant Academy and for the same he sent Ex.A1 offer letter to the Complainant quoting the prize of Rs.13,00,000/- and agreeing for the said offer the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,96,050/-  through bank transaction and also by way of cash under documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 and Ex.A10 .

          8. The Complainant contended that despite  of receipt of 50% amount in advance the Opposite Party have not fulfilled the contract and left the work incomplete and in spite of request, the Opposite Party has not completed the work as per the schedule stipulated in the agreement and therefore the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service.

          9. The Opposite Party would reply that the Complainant agreed as per Ex.B2 invoice for a sum of Rs.13,52,000/- and the Complainant himself is due to pay sum of Rs.6,52,000/- to him and therefore the Opposite Party who has committed default in payment cannot allege deficiency on him and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

10.  Admittedly as per Ex.A1 the Opposite Party offered his price for supply and  installation of Swimming Pool Equipments for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. Ex.B2 quotes the price for supply of swimming pool treatment equipments Rs.13,52,000/- However, Ex.A1 offer letter issued by the Opposite Party was not filed as document on his behalf. Therefore, the price for installation of Swimming Pool Equipments quoted by the Opposite Party is accepted as a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-only. The Complainant paid to the Opposite Party under Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 & Ex.A10 a sum of Rs.7,96,050/- against the accepted amount of Rs.13,00,000/- . Therefore, the Complainant is still due a sum of Rs.5,03,950/- to the Opposite Party in respect of  installation of Swimming Pool Equipments   agreed  in Ex.A1.

11.  The Complainant is a Consumer who has defaulted in payment of sum of part amount of Rs.5,03,950/- to the Opposite Party and therefore the Complainant is a defaulter in respect of payment. 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. 

12. 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 28.02.2011                   Offer letter from the Opposite Party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 07.05.2011                   Complainant’s State Bank of India statement of a

                                                      sum of Rs.5,00,000/- made to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 29.08.2011                   Complainant’s ICICI Statement for a sum of

                                                    Rs.2,00,000/- made to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 19.10.2011                   Receipt issued by YMCA college of Physical

                                                    Education

 

Ex.A5 dated 23.12.2011                   Receipt issued by YMCA college of Physical

                                                    Education

 

Ex.A6 dated 07.02.2012                   Receipt issued by YMCA college of Physical

                                                    Education

 

Ex.A7 dated 14.03.2012                   Receipt issued by YMCA college of Physical

                                                    Education

 

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 20.09.2012                 Receipt issued by YMCA college of Physical

                                                     Education

 

Ex.A11 dated 29.10.2012                 Revised offer for supply of Swimming pool

                                                     Equipments

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 13.12.2010                   Quotation by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Invoice-Swimming Pool Equipments

 

Ex.B3 dated 22.06.2012                   Legal Notice from the Complainant

 

Ex.B4 dated 19.07.2012                   Reply by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Statement of pending payments from the

                                                     Complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT