JINDAL PIPES LTD. Vs. SANJEEV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Hamirpur, in Consumer Complaint No.42/2008, dated 24.2.2010, whereby the complaint was allowed and opposite parties were ordered and directed jointly and severally to refund the enhanced rate amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization besides cost of the complaint which was quantified at Rs.2,000. Parties are hereinafter being referred to as per their status in the complaint.

(2.) FACTS of the case within narrow compass are that the complainant, Sanjeev Sharma, partner of M/s Khaitani Construction, Anu, Hamirpur, had filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the œAct against the opposite parties No.1 to 4 wherein it had been alleged that the complainant is working as a contractor and he used to take contracts from various Government Departments including Irrigation and Public Health Department of H.P. Government and that the opposite party No.1 introduced and disclosed that they are dealing in marketing of Jindal pipes which are manufactured by opposite party No.2 and opposite parties No.3 & 4 are working for opposite party No.1. Further allegations in the complaint were to the effect that in the month of December, 2007, the work to lay down the pipes for water supply scheme Majhiar -Sera Pakhrol Phase -II was awarded to the complainant in December, 2007 by the State of Himachal Pradesh and consequently, when the complainant came to know that the opposite party No.1 is dealing in supply of said pipes, he contacted it on 27.12.2007 to supply certain lengths and quantity of pipes as per specification and that the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 were also informed that the third party inspection was also required for the material as per norms settled with the Government and accordingly, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 and after discussion, the opposite party No.3 agreed to supply the requisite material @ Rs.37,800 per metric ton including excise duty and that no time limit was fixed to execute the agreement. That the order was placed, which was accepted by the opposite parties to supply the pipes of 377.76 metric ton and the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 1,42,79,328 to the opposite parties and that the opposite party No.3 negotiated the deal and the MLC (Multi City Cheque) of Rs. 15,00,000 was handed over to them.

(3.) IT was also alleged that the complainant was not having the knowledge that the limit of issuance of cheque is only to the extent of Rs.10,00,000 so in such circumstances though there was enough amount in the account, but the payment was not made and that the cheque has never been bounced due to insufficient funds in the account and that the complainant received e -mail on 2.1.2008 from Mr. Sanjay Singh, Marketing Officer of opposite party No.1 that rolling of requisite pipes has been scheduled on 8.1.2006 and requested for payment and again same e -mail was received on 7.1.2008 that all material shall be rolled in coming 2 -3 days and requested to make the payment of Rs.1,51,74,613.21 and it was further stated vide e -mail dated 9.1.2008 that the entire consignment shall be ready till 14.1.2008 and requested the complainant to arrange the payment, but again on 22.1.2008 the complainant received another e -mail from Shri Sanjay Singh that the entire rolling of the pipe shall be completed within 2 or 3 days and further requested to arrange the payment. That the complainant replied the above e -mails and disclosed that he has already transferred Rs.60,00,000 by RTGS on 14.1.2008 in the account as per direction of opposite parties and requested to give the delivery schedule of the consignment and that till 29th January, 2008 no communication was made to the effect that what is the delivery schedule and whether the material has been rolled and ready for dispatch, but vide e -mail received on 29th January, 2008, it was disclosed that whole of the material has been rolled and ready for dispatch and the complainant was requested to lift the entire material on or before 31.1.2008 failing which increase of Rs.2,000 per metric ton shall be charged from the complainant and such narration of opposite parties shocked the complainant as no such fact was ever disclosed at the time of agreement and negotiations.