JAIN VISHWA BHARTI Vs. SHRI CEMENT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order dated 18.9.91 passed by the District Forum, Ajmer in Complaint Case No.510/90 the unsuccessful complainant has filed this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein), the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Facts leading to this appeal are these:-

(2.) A permit for supply of levy cement was issued by the State of Rajasthan on 5.12.1988 in favour of the complainant-appellant.100 M. T. cement which is filled in 2000 bags was to be supplied at the rate of levy cement. The rate of levy cement is less than the rate for non-levy cement. The complainant-appellant deposited an amount of Rs.1,04,100/- by D. D. on 28.12.88 as desired by the Opposite Parties and requested for minimum quantity of cement as the construction work in the Campus of the University situated in Ladnu was going on. The Opposite Parties supplied 45 M. T. levy cement which was contained in 900 bags at the rate applicable to levy cement. They failed to supply the rest of the levy cement. The Complainant gave several reminders. The Complainant has alleged that even the State Government through its Food and Civil Supplies Department issued directions on 17.4.1989 to supply 55 M. T. levy cement immediately to the complainant. The Opposite Parties supplied the cement but they charged at the rate applicable to non-levy cement. The Complainant has stated that the Central Government had fixed the rates for the levy cement. The Opposite Parties are liable to supply the full quantity of 100 M. T. at the rates fixed for levy cement for which full amount was deposited in advance with the Opposite Parties. The Complainant filed the complaint claiming Rs.72,827.18 including Rs.50,000/-asc ompensation for harassment. Interest @ 18% p. a. was claimed on the amount of Rs.72,827.18. The following prayer was also made in the complaint:-

(3.) Opposite Parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed the version of the case contesting the complaint. It was pleaded that the levy cement could be supplied by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant in accordance with the conditions and terms. Whatever quantity was available that was supplied in accordance with the terms of the contract. Remaining quantity was supplied to other persons and so the Opposite Parties could not send it to the complainant. Reference was made by the Opposite Parties to their letter No.3824 dated 1.6.89 that for the refund of the balance of the amount the Opposite Parties are ready to supply non-levy cement as a special case. The Complainant in its letter dated 28.12.89 desired for the supply of non-levy cement and according to the novated contract cement was sent which was accepted by the complainant. It was said that 1020 bags of non-levy cement for Rs.59,155.26 was sent to the complainant. It was pleaded that after the novation of contract, the old contract automatically came to an end and according to the novated contract both the parties complied with it and, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any amount from the Opposite Parties. An objection was taken that Opposite Parties Nos.1, 3 and 4 have wrongly been impleaded as no contract was entered by them. An objection was taken that the Opposite Parties Nos.1, 3 and 4 have wrongly been impleaded, the complaint is not maintainable. An objection was also raised that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to hear the claim based on the contract.