GENERAL COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD Vs. J K CEMENT WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a Group Housing Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. They were constructing flats for the members no. plot on 37, Patparganj, Delhi. They wrote a letter dated 15.7.89 to J. K. Cement works, respondent No.1, inquiring whether they were agreeable to supply 50,000/- cement bags to them on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter. The respondent vide letter dated 12th August, 1989 agreed to supply the said quantity of bags to the complainant. It is alleged and that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions on which the respondent agreed to supply the bags.

(2.) The complainant thereafter placed orders for the supply of 15,000 cement bags on the respondent No.1 from time to time, which were executed on 24th July, 1990 they asked the respondent No.1 to supply 35,000 cement bags within one month. Inspite of various letters and reminders, the respondent failed to supply the said quantity. In order to avoid stoppage of work, it is pleaded, the complainant purchased 4336 bags from the market at a cost of rupees 3,91,789/-. The respondent had to supply the cement at the rate of Rs.68/- per bag. The price of the said 4336 bags at the rate of Rs.68/- came to Rs.2,94,848/-. Thus the complainant paid an excess amount of Rs.96,941/-. The complainant has claimed the said amount of Rs.96,941/- from the said respondent. They have further requested that respondent No.1 be directed to supply the balance quantity of cement bags immediately. They have claimed both the reliefs against respondent No.2, the agent of respondent No.1 also.

(3.) The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They inter-alia pleaded that the complaint did not fall within the definition of word 'complaint' as defined in Sec.2 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). They further pleaded that the complainant wanted enforcement of the contract against the respondent which cannot be done by the State Commission under the Act. It was also pleaded by them that the complainant claimed the relief for an amount which was less than Rs.1 lac and therefore the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.