WATER BASE LTD Vs. DILIP KUMAR JANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent had a prawn farm and to feed them, he entered into an agreement with the appellant, the Water Base Ltd. for supply of Hi-tech Prawn feed from Mellore worth Rs. 10 lakhs for which a Bank guarantee was also obtained. The feed was to be supplied between 10.3.1995 and 9.8.1995, it could be further extended for another 3 months, i.e., upto 10.11.1995. It was the case of the respondent/complainant that the appellant never supplied this feed resulting in death of the prawns due to ill-health, in the absence of proper feed. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 11,74,500/- comprising Rs. 11,62,500/- being the cost of the prawns and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- as cost. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has filed this appeal before us.

(3.) IT is also his case that he had supplied the feed through his distributor M/s. Sundarbans Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta. Distributor Agreement between appellant and the Sundarbans Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., respondent No. 2, is before us. The State Commission erred in not relying upon this distributor agreement. It is his case even if the Distributor Agreement is not taken into consideration, it is admitted position that the complainant had purchased 1700 kgs. feed from the respondent No. 2, who was the distributor of the appellant. Further supply could not be made as the complainant had filed a civil suit praying for restraining the appellant from encashing the Bank guarantee. On the other hand, it was argued by the first respondent that the State Commission was quite correct in allowing the appeal as the dates of issue of stamp papers and the date of agreement differ. This was done with the intention to perpetrate fraud with respondent/complainant. Whatever material had been purchased by the complainant from the second respondent was purchased by way of open market purchases and not as part of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the appellant. It was on account of non-supply of this material that the prawns died resulting in a huge loss to the complainant. The order passed by the State Commission is quite correct and supported by the material on record and does not call for any interference.