S H ASHRAF Vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the original complainant; he is aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) South Goa Margao by order dated 22.11.2007 in Complaint No. 23/2005. The respondents are the original opposite parties.

(2.) IN a nutshell, it is the appellant/ complainants case that the respondents/ opposite parties offered to design, manufacture, supply, etc. passenger elevator in his bungalow at Chicalim for cost of Rs. 3,50,000 which offer was acceptedby letter dated 18.3.1999by paying advance of Rs. 25,000. The construction of the bungalow had just started; it was agreed that the elevator would be delivered, installed and commissioned only on the bungalow being ready for occupation. The representative of the respondents/opposite parties visited the site on several occasions to verify the installation site and suggested changes from time -to -time which the appellant/complainant carried out. The appellant/complainant also agreed to certain additional features proposed by the respondents/opposite parties. When the bungalow was completed in early 2004, the appellant/complainant called upon the respondents/ opposite parties by letter dated 26.6.2004 to depute their representative at the site. The respondents/opposite parties informed the appellant/complainant by letter dated 6.7.2004 that they had closed the contract since it was valid for 52 weeks and had expired on 15.2.2000. The respondents/opposite parties however agreed to perform the contract at revised rate of Rs. 4,45,000 and auto door arrangement at Rs. 5,80,000. The appellant/complainant then issued notice dated 23.8.2004 calling upon the respondents/ opposite parties to instal the elevator within six weeks, which was not complied. The appellant/complainant sought direction to the opposite parties to execute the contract at the agreed price or alternatively to refund the sum of Rs. 25,000 paid by the complainant along with interest.

(3.) PER contra, succinctly, it is the respondents/opposite parties case that the forum had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint in view of the arbitration clause. The complaint was barred by limitation and that the contract had automatically lapsed and/or got cancelled in view of the conditions contained in the contract. As per the contract execution schedule, the contract commences on the date of signing and completion time was fixed as 52 weeks from that date. The letter dated 26.6.2004 was issued maliciously by the appellant/complainant; however the respondents/opposite parties had replied that the period of 52 weeks had expired on 15.2.2000. The averment that their representative regularly visited the site was denied. The respondents/ opposite parties offer to execute the work at revised price was not accepted by the appellant/complainant. There was no deficiency in services rendered by them.