Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

19/2013

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

Versus

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

M/s.Mcgan law Firm

30 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.19/2013

 

 

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 direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,705/- towards monetary loan for rearranging the RO 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 fully acquainted with the intention of the Complainant in installing Reverse Osmosis Plant (hereinafter called as RO Plant) to its academy campus and introduces themselves as experts in the field of RO Plants. The Opposite Party placed its quotation along with the design and assured best output of their work with respect to implementation of RO Plant in the Complainant’s Academic Campus. The Complainant accepted the offer of the Opposite Party that was made vide its offer letter dated 25.09.2010 and 02.12.2010 respectively with regard to the Office Block & College, two drinking water RO Plants with a capacity of 10,000 & 4,000 liters per day and with regard  to the Canteen requirement one drinking water RO plant with a capacity of 3,000 – 5,000 Ltrs per day and thereby the Complainant handed over the work of installing RO plants with the Opposite Party.

2. The Complainant had also paid the entire payment to the Opposite Party as demanded by the Opposite Party with respect to the installation of RO Plants in the following manner:-

 

 

1. Cheque No.570077 dated 25.09.2010 drawn on ICICI Bank Limited for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
2. Cheque No.092789 dated 31.12.2010 dran on State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
3. Cheque No.092728 dated 08.12.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.75,000/-
4. Cheque No.092981 dated 28.02.2011 drawn on State Bank of India, for a sum of Rs.1,33,040/-

The receipt of the entire payment was acknowledged by the Opposite Party vide its communication dated 28.02.2011. Whereas according to the agreement and offer letter dated 25.09.2010, the completion of the above project was fixed 7 to 10 days from the date of confirming order. After the completion of the installation of RO Plant by the Opposite Party, the Complainant started to use the same. But to the shock and surprise of the Complainant, the output of RO Plant did not meet the requirement as specified and assured by the Opposite Party in his quotation. The Complainant informed the Opposite Party with regard to the deficiencies of the RO Plant as it failed to deliver the accepted output and requested the Opposite Party to demonstrate the efficiency of the RO plant installed by them. Thereafter, the Opposite Party found that the RO Plant is not functioning as per the accepted design and hence the Opposite Party agreed to improve the efficiency of the RO Plant at its own cost by changing the membrane. Even after changing the above said ingredients in the RO Plant, the RO Plant did not get improvised and continued deficiency in delivering the required quantum of water which was originally assured by the Opposite Party in their offer letter.

3. The Complainant suffers lack of drinking water everyday due to which the students of the Complainant’s institution suffered a lot and gone to an extent of conducting strike against the management of the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant caused a notice dated 22.06.2012 through his lawyer to the Opposite Party pointing out the above deficiencies which also called the Opposite Party to install a new RO Plant. The Complainant had so far spent a sum of Rs.2,21,705/- for rearranging the RO Plant, which is a monetary loss incurred by the Complainant due to the deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Party in installing RO Plant. Thereafter, vide reply notice dated 19.07.2012, the Opposite Party gave lame reasons to escape from its liability. It is also pertinent to point out that in order to safeguard the Consumers interest; it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to take care of fair service.  Whereas the case of the Complainant is that the same was not complied with by the Opposite Parties, which is merely an act of negligence and unfair practice. Hence, the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.2,21,705/- towards monetary loss for rearranging the RO and also compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony  with cost of the Complaint.    

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for the supply of the RO Plant 1000 Ltrs/HR and RO Plant 500 Ltrs/Hr and supplies for the old RO Plant and servicing old RO Plant and only on request from the Complainant the Opposite Party sent an offer letter dated 25.09.2010 to the Complainant for supply of RO Plant 1000 Ltrs/HR Equipment and a sum of Rs.3,53,600/- was fixed, and by an offer letter dated 02.12.2010 to the Complainant for supply of  RO Plant 500 Ltrs/HR Equipment and a sum of Rs.1,54,440/- was fixed and the same was accepted by the Complainant. The Opposite Party immediately started installing the RO Plants, and after commissioning the RO Plants the Complainant was satisfied with the outcome and originally the Complainant had informed that the water would be used for drinking purpose alone at the rate of 700 students + staff members and the Opposite Party had advised for installation of these RO Plants to meet out the drinking of 1000 persons and inspite of power fluctuation in the premises the Opposite Party managed to operate the RO Plants as per the offer, but thereafter the treated water was also used for the purpose of ship building boilers and enormous load of water was required  by the Complainant  due to which the RO Plant had to be operated through out and the Opposite Party on various occasions informed the Complainant to install separate EB connection or phase to avoid power fluctuations, which also the Complainant failed to do.

5. The price for RO Plant was agreed between the Complainant and the Opposite Party for Rs.3,53,600/- and Rs.1,54,440/- by offer dated 25.09.2010 and 02.12.2010 for the supply of RO Plant Equipments and its Installation and commissioning and so far the Complainant have paid in respect of the RO Plants work if as follows:-

INVOICE		PAYMENT DETAILS
PARTICULARS	AMOUNT	DATE	MODE	AMOUNT
RO.Plant 1000  Ltrs/Hr	3,53,600	25.09.10 13.12.10	Cheque No.570077 Cheque No.092728	2,00,000    75,000
RO.Plant 500 Ltrs/Hr   Softener Membranes	1,54,440	31.12.10    28.02.11	Cheque No.072789 Cheque No.092981	1,00,000 1,33,040
Total	5,08,040			5,08,040

 

Payment pending in respect of RO Plant work as follows:-

INVOICE			PAYMENT DETAIL			PENDING PAYMENT
DATE	NO	AMOUNT	DATE	MODE	AMOUNT
01.10.11	46	75,000
01.10.11	47	63,500
TOTAL		1,38,500				1,38,500

Payment due in respect of Maintenance by man power for STP & RO plants as follows:-

INVOICE			PAYMENT DETAIL			PENDING PAYMENT
DATE	NO	AMOUNT	DATE	MODE	AMOUNT
01.10.11	44	50,000	24.10.11   18.11.11	Cheque No.223923 Cheque No.666263	30,000   10,000
01.11.11	49	60,000	18.11.11   18.11.11	Cheque No.666260 Cheque No.666264	30,000   20,000
31.05.12	4 (2012-13)	49,032
Total		1,59,032			90,000	69,032

 

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 RO Plants with own man power without any technical qualification.

6. 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 and not because of the Opposite Party and for delaying the payment of balance amount to the Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service provided by the Opposite Party and 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 

          It is not in dispute that the Opposite Party agreed to install Reverse Osmosis Plant (RO Plant) in the Complainant Academy and for the same,  he sent Ex.A1 & ExB1  offer letter to the Complainant quoting the prize of Rs.3,53,600/-. The Opposite Party detailed in his written version that in respect of RO, the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,49,032/- on various dates and he is due to pay to him a sum of Rs.69,032/-.  The fact of payment  and due by Complainant was not disputed by him in his proof affidavit filed by the Complainant subsequent to the filing of the written version of the Opposite Party. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is due to the Opposite Party a sum of Rs.69,032/- out of the agreed amount.

9.  The Complainant is a Consumer who has defaulted in payment of a sum of part amount of Rs.69,032/- 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. 

10. 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 25.09.2010                   Offer letter from the Opposite Party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 28.09.2010                   ICICI Bank statement for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

                                                     by the Complainant to the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 02.12.2010                   Offer letter from the Opposite Party to the

                                                     Complainant

 

Ex.A4 dated 21.12.2010                   State Bank of India Statement for payment of

                                                        Rs.75,000/- by the Complainant to the Opposite

                                                     Party

 

Ex.A5 dated 28.02.2011                   Receipt of payment by Opposite Party

 

Ex.A6 dated 23.02.2011                   State Bank of India Statement for payment of

                                                    Rs.1,00,000/- by the Complainant to the Opposite

                                                      Party

 

Ex.A7 dated 29.03.2011                   State Bank of India Statement for payment of

                                                    Rs.1,33,040/- by the Complainant to 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

Ex.A11 dated 06.11.2012                 Quotation of M/s H2O Engineering Solutions

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 25.09.2010                   Quotation by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B2 dated 02.12.2010                   Quotation by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                     Report counter signed by the Complainant for

                                                quality (Series)

 

Ex.B4 dated 19.08.2011                   Quotation for Shifting of RO plant

 

Ex.B5 dated NIL                     Payment pending invoice (Series)

 

Ex.B6 dated 21.09.2011                   Quotation for operation & Maintenance

 

Ex.B7 dated NIL                     Invoices-operation & Maintenance pending

                                                    payment Bills (Series)

 

Ex.B8 dated 29.10.2011                   Lab Report for Hardness in water (Series)

 

Ex.B9 dated 21.01.2012                   E-mail to the Complainant regarding power

                                                    Problem

 

Ex.B10 dated 22.06.2012                 Legal Notice from the Complainant

 

Ex.B11 dated 19.07.2012                 Reply by the Opposite Party

 

Ex.B12 dated NIL                             Statement  of pending payments from the

                                                    Complainant

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT