RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL PARTNER SANJAY AGRAWAL SON OF SHRI RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL ADDRESS: SARVODAYA NAGAR HEERAPUR ROAD, C.G. NAGAR C.G. PUBLIC SCHOOL RAIPUR TAHSIL RAIPUR C.G. Vs. AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. AND OTHER ADDRESS: 37, MATRICHHAYA, RAVINGAR RAIPUR C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition no. 2668 of 2016 has been filed against the judgment dated 08.06.2016 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('the State Commission') in Appeal no. FA/2016/100.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner M/s Radheshyam Agarwal are that it was a registered contractor of water resources and public work department. The petitioner does the work after obtaining tenders from the above institutions. In order to carry out his work he requires cement which he has been purchasing from various companies apart from the respondent. On 17.01.2011, the petitioner/ complainant gave a purchase order of 1000 metric tonnes (20,000 bag) of cement to the respondents @ Rs.178/- per bag for which he paid an advance of Rs.20 lakh by cheque no. 961865 on 17.01.2011 and the balance amount was to be paid on supply of the cement. The cement was urgently required for his work, the same fact was known to the respondent. The respondent supplied only 6460 bags of cement during the period between 23.01.2011 to 30.01.2011 in spite of various requests orally and telephonically and the remaining 13,540 bags of cements were not supplied. As he required the cement urgently for his work, in order to complete his work he was compelled to purchase the cement at a higher rate of Rs.230 per bag from some other companies to complete his work due to which he has incurred a loss of Rs.7,04,080/-. The balance amount of Rs.8,50,120/- was returned to the petitioner vide cheque dated 19.04.2011 on 04.05.2011. He has thus alleged deficiency on the part of the respondent in not supplying the cement on time. He has made a prayer that the respondent be directed to pay him Rs.19,55,080/- along with interest @ 12%.

(3.) The respondent/ opposite party in their written statement have contended that the petitioner/ complainant was not a consumer as he was a registered contractor of Category 5 and he needed the cement for his use in his business of construction. The petitioner was also not self-employed as they were undertaking the work by engaging labourer, mechanics, coolies and women labourer etc. The petitioner was undertaking construction work at different locations such as Sonpur (Bagbahra) Khatti (Rajim) and Ghumaria (Dongargarh).