JINDAL PIPES LTD. Vs. SHRI 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 thepresent complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the Act - 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 and 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 No.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.) THEREAFTER the complainant aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties had tried to persuade the opposite parties to adhere to the deliberations of the agreement executed between the parties and he even posted e -mail to the Chairman -cum -Managing Director, but they did not agree and insisted to lift the material with enhanced amount which was Rs.2,500/ - PMT above the agreed rates and that in such circumstances, the complainant was having no other option, but to pay the amount and lift the remaining material and accordingly vide e -mail dated 6.2.2008, the complainant narrated the facts and under protest and compulsion asked to give the detail of amount which was to be paid with increased rate of pipes, but it was disclosed by said Shri Sanjay that increased rate is Rs.40,300/ - instead of agreed rate of Rs.37,800/ - and that the inspection charges @ 1% has been charged for the first time instead of 0.35% of the cost of material excluding the CST etc., which was disclosed and settled initially at the time of execution of agreement on 27.12.2007.