- (1.) OPPOSITE party is the appellant.
(2.) COMPLAINANT filed a complaint against the opposite party claiming direction for refund of Rs.1,80,000/ - with 12% interest and Rs.1,00,000/ - as damages for compensation for the loss and hardships and for the costs.
(3.) COMPLAINANT entered in to an agreement on 10.2.05 with the opposite party to carry out and execute the contract work for the two water tanks which developed some cracks and water was found leaking at various points. The opposite party to execute the work without any examine reservation within the time frame and in case of breach opposite party had agreed to indemnify the complainant. Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,80,000/ - being the half of the amount of total consideration was paid to the opposite party on 10.2.05. The opposite party had not taken any initiating to complete the work in spite of the reminders made within the time frame provided and because of the same complainant had to face huge losses and untold hadships. When the complainant demanded for the refund of the advance the opposite party was evading and thereby a legal notice was sent in June 2006 for which a reply was received on 20.7.06 stating that the opposite party spent huge amount towards purchase of materials and other expenses in executing the contract and delay in execution was unanticipated beyond their control for which an excess of Rs.93,024/ - was spent by the opposite party and after revocation of the contract the opposite party appointed a retired chief engineer of Public Works Department to inspect the tanks and give possible reasons for the leaks which is only an eye wash to avoid the liabilities. Hence the complainant has come forward with this consumer complaint claiming the reliefs as above. The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant except to admit the contract entered in to and the work was not completed within the time frame because of various reasons and it is stated the total estimate of quotations was for Rs.10,84,640/ - and total amount for the work for 4354 sq. ft. at the unit price of Rs.65/ - total comes to Rs.2,83,010/ - and 50% of the amount was paid after entering the agreement and work was carried out by placing orders for various materials with various companies and the work was attended from 26.3.05 to 31.3.05 and due to incessant continuous run, the work was postponed. The opposite party was unable to complete the work by the stipulated time. The opposite party sent a reply on 3.6.05 for the notice sent by the complainant explaining the delay and the defects and discrepancies that surfaced during the work beyond the control of the opposite party and requested the complainant to remove the defects that does not feature in the agreement. The opposite party also approached the expert opinion from one retired chief engineer PWD and as per his report the tanks were very old structure and due to efflux of time the tanks had developed several cracks and masimerg work has been completely exposed and without set righting the defects the work could not be carried out as the wall was not able to withstand the pressure from inside and this was one of the reasons among other for leakages. The opposite party had spent Rs. 2,82,087/ - Rs.93,024/ - apart from the advance of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Hence the complainant was called upon to pay the same. Complainant is not a consumer being the registered company and it is not individual having self employment scheme. Since the complainant in the breach of contract such dispute will not constitute a consumer dispute. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the opposite party also filed civil suits relating to the transactions.;