SREEVATSA INDUSTRIES Vs. JESUS CALLS TRUSTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Jesus Calls Trust planned to construct a prayer centre at Karunya Nagar, Methuvarayyapuram village, Coimbatorc, known as "Bethesda Prayer Centre". They entrusted the work to a firm of Architects, namely, Kingsway Consultant. One item of the works was to provide stainless steel handrails to the prayer platform. There was another work relating to stainless steel cladding to the R.C.C. Dome over the proposed prayer hall inside the Engineering College of Coimbatore managed by the Karunya Educational Trust. Both the works i.e. the cladding of the RCC Dome over the proposed prayer hall in the Engineering College and supply of stainless steel handrails to the prayer platform and the ramp were entrusted by Kingsway Consultant to M/s. Sreevatsa Industries who are the appellants before us. The appellants could not supply the stainless steel handrails in time and as a result the Kingsway Consultant, the second respondent before us entrusted it to another party. The Jesus Calls Trust and the Kingsway Consultant filed a complaint before the State Commission, Tamil Nadu, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant in not providing the handrails etc. in time and thus causing loss to them in the sense that they had to pay an additional amount of Rs. 1,16,322/- to another party for the supply of handrails. During the hearing of the complaint it was admitted by the appellant that they had received a sum of Rs. 2,39,000/- for the supply of handrails etc. Whereas they supplied handrails valued at Rs. 30,800/- only. The State Commission came to the conclusion that the present appellants before us were responsible for delay in doing the job entrusted to them and kept the sum of Rs. 2,08,200/- with them from 2.6.1992 onwards without any justification. The State Commission also decided in favour of the respondents herein on the point whether they were consumers or not for filing a complaint for deficiency in service against the appellant, M/s. Sreevatsa Industries. Hence, they awarded a sum of Rs. 2,08,200/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 2.6.1992 till the date of payment and also a sum of Rs. 1,16,322/- on account of loss sustained by the respondent in entrusting the contract to another party.

(2.) The appellant M/s. Sreevatsa Industries has urged before us that since the transaction was of a commercial nature and part of a contract, the respondent could not have filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. After perusing the file and the order of the State Commission we are of the view that the award of contract for doing a job was in the nature of a service to be rendered by the appellant for consideration and, therefore, we are in agreement with the finding of the State Commission, in this regard.

(3.) The fact that a sum of Rs. 2,39,000/- was paid by the respondents to the appellant for doing the job of fabricating and supply of handrails is admitted by both the parties. It is also admitted by them that work done on this account by the appellant is of the value of Rs. 30,800/- only. The argument of the appellant is that the delay was caused principally due to the inaction on the part of the respondents and, therefore, he is not responsible for it. Moreover, he had utilised this sum of Rs. 2,39,000/- for completing the work of the other contract, namely, cladding of the RCC Dome over the prayer hall in the Engineering College at Coimbatore. After careful consideration of the facts of this case we are of the view mat the utilisation of funds given for a specific job, if diverted to another job, constitutes a breach of condition, even when both the jobs have been entrusted by the same party. Therefore, on this account too, we find no reason to disagree with the finding of the State Commission that the appellants are responsible for deficiency in service in respect of fabricating and supply of handrails for which they had received Rs. 2,39,000/- last payment being on 2.6.1992.