CC Filed on 16.04.2009<br /> Disposed on 09.02.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 09th day of February 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 29/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Prashanth Solar and U.P.S System,<br /> Doddapet Road,<br /> Kolar.<br /> Rep. by Sri. M.V. Shanthareddy,<br /> Proprietor.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. N. Ramachandraiah) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Deputy Commissioner,<br /> Kolar District,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. District Social Welfare Officer,<br /> Kolar District,<br /> Ambedkar Bhavan,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Taluk Social Welfare Officer,<br /> Malur Taluk,<br /> Malur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,89,750/- with costs and interest, etc. <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is authorized dealer of water filter, solar water heater and lighting systems of Sun Technics. That OP.3 called for tenders for supply of water filters to certain hostels in Malur Taluk run by Social Welfare Department. The complainant also participated in the tender proceedings and his tender being the lowest in quoting the price of water filters, the same was accepted. OP.3 issued letter dated 08.08.2007 to install water filters to various hostels stated in the said letter and further asked to obtain certificate from the wardens of respective hostels for having installed the water filter and its utility and to submit his bills towards the price of water filters. Thereafter the complainant supplied water filters to different hostels and obtained required certificates from the wardens on the back of tax-invoices cum delivery challans and submitted the bills to OP.3 for payment. Further it is alleged that inspite of repeated requests OP.3 or other OPs are not cared to settle the amount. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint on 16.04.2009.<br /> <br /> 3. The Learned District Government Pleader appeared on behalf of all OPs. OP.3 filed version, others adopted the said version. The supply of water filters to various hostels as desired by OP.2 and 3 and the submission of bills by complainant to OP.3 for payment of the price of water filters with necessary documents are not denied. It is contended that there was no deficiency in service by any of the OPs and thereby the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, therefore the complaint is not maintainable. Further they contended that the installation of water filters was not carried properly and many of the water filters are not in working condition and as such OP.3 is making arrangements to return the water filters to complainant. Therefore it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit and required documents. No evidence is led on behalf of OPs. Heard the Learned Counsel for parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs?<br /> Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the submissions and records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that there was agreement between complainant and OPs that complainant should supply water filters to hostels run by OPs and on supply of water filters and its installations and obtaining utility certificate from wardens of hostels, the OPs shall pay the price towards the supply of water filters. He pointed out that the OPs did not dispute the supply of water filters and its installation and even they did not deny their liability to pay the amount towards the installed water filters, therefore he submits that any breach of agreement on the part of OPs in not paying the amount as agreed amounts to deficiency in service. The Learned Counsel for OPs contended that non-payment of amount as per agreement may amounts to breach of contract and the remedy is elsewhere but not before this Forum as complainant has not availed or hired any service from OPs. <br /> <br /> Our Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No. 1991/2006 between Smt. B. Rajeshwari V/s. Zilla Panchayat and another disposed of on 01.06.2007 has held in a similar case that non-payment of the amount as per the terms amounts to deficiency in service and thereby the complaint is maintainable under C.P. Act. The State Government has not challenged the order passed in the said Appeal. The facts in that case and in the present case are exactly similar. Therefore we think we have to hold that the non-payment of amount in the present case amounts to deficiency in service. Hence point No.1 is held in affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: The other contention of the OPs that the installations of water filters were not proper and the water filters were not in working condition, appears to be not true. In the tax-invoice cum delivery challan the complainant has obtained the certificate from warden of each hostel where water filter was installed showing that the water filter described in the delivery challan was installed and it was functioning properly. The complainant issued two-three notices from time to time claiming amount, but OP.3 or others did not give any reply stating that for any reason they were going to return the water filters to complainant. If the water filters were not properly installed and they were not functioning, this fact would have been brought to the knowledge of the complainant at the earliest. Such contention is taken only after filing the present complaint. For deficiency in service if any by complainant the OPs may take appropriate action against him as per the terms of agreement. This cannot be a ground for withholding the payment. In support of such contention nothing is placed on record by OPs. Hence this contention of OPs appears to be not true. <br /> <br /> The exact term regarding payment of interest for delayed payment is not forthcoming from the records. The complainant has not produced the terms of tender agreement. Therefore we think interest prior to the date of passing the order need not be allowed. However interest may be allowed if payment is not made within the time stipulated by us from the date of order. Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.7,89,750/- (rupees seven lakh eighty-nine thousand and seven hundred-fifty only) to complainant on or before 30.04.2010. If they commit default in paying the said amount as directed, they shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said amount from the date of order till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 09th day of February 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />