West Bengal

Kolkata-I(North)

CC/13/661

Asansol Engineering College - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Kinetic Elevators Limited and another - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata - I (North)
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
Web-site - confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/661
 
1. Asansol Engineering College
Vivekananda Sarani,Kanyapur, Asansol, Burdwan
Burdwan
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/s. Kinetic Elevators Limited and another
58F, Hindustan Park, Kolkata-700029.
Kolkata
WB
2. K.S. Vaidya, Manager(Operation), Kinetic Elevators Limited
73, 7th Floor, City Centre, Swantik Cross Road, G.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, Gujrat.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 02 Jan 2017
Final Order / Judgement

Order No.  21  dt.  02/01/2017

            The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is an educational institution for the  purpose of the said institution 2 numbers of lift were booked to the o.p.s. An agreement was entered into to that effect followed by a purchase order dt. 06/04/2010. In the terms and conditions of the agreement it was stated that goods supplied will be subject to the inspection approval by the representative of the institute on arrival at the destination. Another point was mentioned that 60% against dispatch document but cheque to be handed over against delivery of material. Both the points clearly mentioned that  delivery of the materials are to be made at the destination, i.e. Asansol Engineering College. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/-. The o.p. 2 sent one letter demanding payment violating the terms and agreement of the contract. The o.p. 2 demanded the entire money which was an absurd demand since the company is situated in Ahmedabad and without receiving the material at the college campus, it was not possible to pay the entire amount to the o.p. 2 and the o.p. 2 violated the terms and conditions of the contract.

            Because of such non-installation of the lifts, the college had to face adverse report from AICTE members as well as guest lecturers. Since there was gross deficiency in service the complainant had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.p.s to supply and erection of 2 numbers lift at the college premises and also for compensation for other reliefs.

The o.p.s did not contest the case though the notice was published in the daily newspaper as such the case has proceeded ex-parte.

In support of the case of the complainant, Shree Madangopal Tewari, Principal, Asansol Engineering College filed an Affidavit of evidence wherein he stated that for installation of 2 numbers of lift the o.p.s were giving the contract and it was decided that 20% of the total price of the lifts would be paid in advance, 60% against dispatch document but cheque would be handed over against delivery of material and 10% would be released after completion of erection work and balance 10% would be paid on handing over license. On the basis of the said term of the payment which was accepted by the o.p. 2 and accordingly order was issued. In spite of receiving the order the o.p.s did not obey the terms and conditions of the contract for which the complainant had to face the adverse comment from the AICTE members. Because of such not honouring the said contract and also for not supplying the lifts the students have suffered lot for which the complainant had to file this case for necessary direction upon the o.p.s so that the lifts are installed and necessary works are to be done by the o.p.s. the complaiantn also prayed for compensation.

Since the evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged and the documents filed by the complainant corroborates the fact that the lifts were ordered by the complainant to be installed at the college premises on the basis of the terms and conditions of the said contract it was decided that payment would be made by the complainant phase by phase according to the progress of the work. Since the o.p.s failed to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement for which the complainant had to face various problems, therefore we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relier as prayed for and there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s.

Hence,

ordered

that the case no. CC/661/2013 is allowed ex-parte with cost against the o.p.s. The o.p.s are jointly and severally directed to supply and erection of 2 numbers of lift ( 8 passengers ) and to accept the payment as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement within 3 months from this day. The o.p.s are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and also to pay litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- within the said period failing which the complainant will be entitled to get interest @10% p.a. till the realization of the amount.            

            Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sambhunath Chatterjee]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Samiksha Bhattacharya]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.