Delhi

East Delhi

CC/647/2014

INVOGUE BUILDING - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURAKSHA INDUSTRIES - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2014

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST), GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 647/14

 

M/s Invogue Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Through Attorney Mr. Trilok Singh

Regd. Officce: SS-38, Aditya Mall

Central Business District

Near Karkardooma Court, Delhi – 110 092                           ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s Suraksha Industries

Regd. Office : 1009-D, Jhandewala

B-Block, MM Road, New Delhi

 

Mr. Manish Kapoor (Director)

M/s Suraksha Industries

House No. 3/45, Phase-3

New Moti Nagar, Delhi – 110 015                                            ….Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 18.07.2014

Judgment Reserved for : 18.05.2016

Judgment Passed on : 18.05.2016

 

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The complainant M/s Invogue Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. have filed a complaint against M/s Suraksha Industries (OP-1) and Mr. Manish Kapoor, Director (OP-2) for return of money paid to them or replacement of shutter installed by them. 

2.        The facts in brief are that Complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having Registered Office at SS-38, Aditya Mall, Central Business Distt., Near Karkardooma Court, Delhi – 110 092.  It is a sole proprietorship concern, engaged in the business of the manufacture, buy, sell, import, export and deals in all type of ferrous and non ferrous metal products, structure and components manufactured and plant and machinery made from it etc.  The respondent/OP is a company registered under the Companies Act 1956, having its Registered Office at 1009-D, Jhandewala, B-Block, MM Road, New Delhi and are engaged in the business of the manufacturing the rolling shutters. 

3.        It is stated that the representative of the respondent approached the complainant company and took the purchase order dated 13.04.2014.  He also collected the cheques against the said order.  It is further stated that the complainant had placed purchase order to the respondent for two flat (angle shape and section of steel) rolling shutter 0.90mm lathes in GI (20G) shaft 2.5”, side BKT.PL.10G, Spring Tata 0 number – 5 PCS, U BKT-12G-4”, Top cover (Hood) – 24 G in GI sheet with heavy duty Gear Box and Handle on 13.02.2014.  The said shutters were to be installed in M/s True Max Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mujeri Village, Faridabad.  The respondent raised Bill No. 093 dated 20.02.2014.  The complainant paid the billing amount for the shutters @ Rs.  1,19,169/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand one hundred and sixty nine only) vide cheque No. 609047 of Rs. 1,00,000/- and other cheque No. 609053 of Rs. 19,169/- dated 20.02.14 and 25.02.14 respectively through ING VYSYA Bank Ltd, Branch CBD Shahdara, Delhi – 110 032.  The amount of Rs. 1,000/- was also given in cash at the site of Faridabad to the supervisor of M/S Suraksha Industries.  The cheques have been duly encashed by the respondent.  After making the payment to the respondent, they installed the said shutters at M/s True Max Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Mujeri Village, Faridabad on 21.02.2014. 

4.        It is further stated that on 28.03.2014 in the evening, there was little wind and showers in the site area and with their impact, one shutter installed came out from the guides.  It is stated that the respondents have supplied/installed a very low quality shutters at site.  They have failed to show any diligence to the completion of the said shutters which was assured by the respondents.  It is further stated that as per clause (11) of the purchase order dated 13.02.2014 under the Warranty plan, it has been stated “Material to be supplied by you (respondents herein) shall be guaranteed to for its performance for a period of 12 months from the date of erection”. However, even after almost 3 weeks, the shutter came out from the guides and all the lathes got damaged.  They have not completed any substantial action.  It is further stated that when the Director of complainant made a personal visit to site of M/s True Max Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mujeri Village, Faridabad, he tried to contact with respondent no. 2 but the respondent did not meet the complainant even he did not speak on the phone.  Thus, it is stated that they have intentionally, deliberately and malafidely installed the said shutters. 

5.        Legal notice was given to the respondents but they have not given any explanation.  Thus the complainant has made a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to them.  They have also claimed return of the money paid to the respondent with interest @ 18% p.a. or replacement of the shutters.

6.        Respondents were served but they have not put the appearance.  Thus, they have been proceeded ex-parte. 

7.        In support of his case, the complainant has examined Sh. Trilok Singh, Accounts Officer of the complainant company, on Affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint and have also got exhibited the documents such as Authority Letter dated 11.07.2014 as Ex.CW1/1, Memorandum of the complainant company Ex.CW1/2, purchase order dated 13.04.2014 Ex.CW1/3, copy of bill dated 20.02.2014 and bank statement Ex.CW1/4 and Ex.CW1/5.  Letter written by the complainant dated 31.03.2014 to the respondent Ex.CW1/6 and postal receipts Ex.CW1/7.  Legal notice is  Ex.CW1/8, along with proof of dispatch dated 122.04.2014, postal receipts and returned envelop Ex. CW1/9, Ex.CW1/10 and Ex.CW1/11 respectively.  Copies of the emails are Ex.CW1/12.

8.        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have perused the material placed on record.  If a look is made to the purchase order which was placed by the complainant on M/s Suraksha Industries, it is noticed that the order contains note having two clauses and clause 2 is in respect of jurisdiction to court which states “all disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent court in Faridabad only”.  Thus, on the face of it, clause 2 gives jurisdiction to a court in Faridabad.  It ousts the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts.  The fact that clause 2 ousts the jurisdiction of the Delhi courts, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.

9.        In view of the above, we are of the opinion that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the complainant on the ground of jurisdiction.  Therefore, the same deserves dismissal and stands dismissed accordingly.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rule.

 

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

Member                                                                                           President