ALPOLIC INDUSTRIES Vs. TIGER STEEL ENGINEERING (1) PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are that the complainant who is engaged in making wooden panels, entered into written agreement on 2.7.2009 with the OP for erecting a shed in Roorkee(Haridwar) for the complainant company. According to the agreement, 62 tons of steel -frame was to be used by the OP, subject to 5% variation, payable by the complainant @ Rs. 66 per kg. totalling to Rs. 40,92,000 including the total taxes, loading and unloading, freight charges and the structural paneling items. The OP started functioning and the OP engaged one Sanju Steel Industries of Bawal Haryana for the erection of the shed, and as agreed between the complainant and the OP, released a work order vide letter 27th January, 2010 in favour of M/s. Sanju Steel Industries for erection of the shed, and also issued a cheque dated 27.1.2010 in favour of Sanju Steel Industries of an amount of Rs. one lac. The work release order is not on the file, and paid Rs. 8 lac by cheque on 11.1.2010 to the OP and Rs. 14 lac by cheque on 27.1.2010 to the OP for supplying material and other things. After receipt of Rs. 22 lac, the OP supplied material vide invoices Nos. 613 and 614, dated 20.1.2010 and 31.1.2010 respectively, to the complainant at Roorkee, which according to the invoices, weighed 43.962 metric tons. The case of the complainant is that when this steel mentioned in the invoice, was weighed on 31.1.2010 at Namberdar Computerized Dharamkanta, Dehradun Road, Raipur in Haridwar, it weighed only 28.515 metric tons in place of 43.962 metric tons. The complainant sent an e -mail from Delhi on 3.2.2010 complaining about this fact to OP and the OP as alleged(Oral) admitted it with an oral undertaking that in future all the material will be supplied according to the original design and contract. On 10.3.2010, vide e -mail, the OP informed the complainant that the Original technical space is changed in between and the building has been designed accordingly, and the material is reduced to 43 tons. The complainant's grouse is that the design was changed without consultation, consent and approval and knowledge of the company, and the complainant verbally informed the OP that the complainant does nbt agree to the change of the original technical space and design. The complainant's further case is that on 5.3.2010 and 6.3.2010 in e -mails to OP, he complained that the erection work is going with a slow speed and halted, and there is no progress on the erection front for last 4 days, reminding the OP that the purchase order dated 16.12.2009 written by the complainant to the OP provides 60 days period from the date of confirmation of the drawing from our end, with penalty of Rs. 25,000 per day, and the OP will be responsible for all designs, conditions in respect of safety and damages. In letter dated 6.3.2010, the complainant also complained of change of the structure, which the complainant reiterated in his e -mail dated 8.3.2010. The OP completed the shed and informed the complainant telephonically that the shed of the changed design is completely safe and they will get it confirmed from some independent agency that the changed design is safe, otherwise they will takeback all the material and return the money, but till day neither any certificate has been produced nor money returned. The complainant's further grouse is that the OP has taken Rs. 1.74 lac extra from the complainant more than their bills. The complainant has now come before this Commission with a complaint to direct the OP to collect all material supplied and return the amount of Rs. 28,14,600 to the complainant with 18% interest, and also to repay extra amount of Rs. 1.74 lac immediately and Rs. 10 lac as damages for deficiency and cost of notice Rs. 5,500.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Sunil Sehgal, Counsel for the complainant at the stage of admission.

(3.) IT will appear from above narration that the complainant is a company for making wooden panels, and the shed was sought to be constructed by the complainant company for the purposes of the operations of the company. The complainant is a commercial company, and the shed was being erected for the business purpose of the company, and the contract for building the shed was therefore clearly for commercial purposes, as envisaged in Section 2(l)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Even the supply of the steel by the OP was for the commercial purpose. It is not a deal of individual for earning his livelihood, and has therefore to be classified as a commercial deal. The complaint is accordingly dismissed as such.