PUNJAB AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY Vs. SAVEER BIOTECHLT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 23-05-2014 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1685 of 2010 Punjab Agriculture University & Anr. Vs. M/s Saveer Biotech Ltd. & Anr., by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No. 1 agreed to construct a greenhouse for the complainants/appellants, vide agreement dated 4.12.1998. In the meeting held on 20.1.1998, which was attended by Sanjay Sudan, Representative of the opposite parties, the Company agreed to complete the project within 12 weeks from the acceptance of the orders. As the Agreement was signed on 4.12.1998, so the same was liable to be completed by mid of March, 1999. The opposite parties failed to construct and complete the same within that period and, thus, failed to comply with the terms and conditions so settled between them. The test running of the green house was held on 24.4.2000 and it was found that shading net was not of green colour and heating converter had not been installed. The condition was found unsatisfactory and accordingly the opposite parties were directed to remove the discrepancies, vide letter dated 30.5.2002. Thereafter, before the test running, this green house was damaged due to average wind during 17.2.2003 to 19.2.2003; as the material used for the construction was not as per the specifications. Opposite party gave new estimate of Rs.1,76,000/- for repairs though complainants were not bound to pay aforesaid amount. Green house was not repaired inspite of receipt of Rs.8,23,477/-. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and admitted execution of agreement but submitted that demand of Rs.1,76,000/- was made for effecting repairs. It was further submitted that complaint was barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by opposite party was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order, against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record.