DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF MARCH 2009.

COMPLAINANT


BY-SRI. N. JATHAPPA,
SRI. B. V. SURESH,
ADVOCATES, BELLARY.

//VS//

SRI. R. ARVIND,
S/O LATE R. YERRI SWAMY,
PROPRIETOR OF M/S GEETHA
ENGINEERING INDUSTRY, # 19/9,
BOMBAY PRESS ROAD,
BELLARY- 583 101.
RESPONDENTS



BY-SRI.R. SATYAMURTHY,
ADVOCATE, BELLARY.


1. THE DIRECTOR,
VIJAYNAGAR INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES,
CATONMENT, BELLARY.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT,
T. B. SANITORIUM HOSPITAL,
T. B. SANITORIUM, CANTONMENT,
BELLARY.

//JUDGMENT//

This is the complaint filed by Complainant by name R.Arvind against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.72,410/- with interest @ 24% p.a., to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and frustration of him, to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this litigation and deficiency in service and other expenses with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;

He has quoted lowest quotation for the supply wooden furnitures to the Respondent hospital as per the tender notification. He was given an order for supplying the furnitures as noted in his complaint worth of Rs.92,960/-. He supplied wooden furnitures as per the specifications and terms and conditions of tender after inspection by the Asst. Director, Taluka Industries Center, Bellary, but Respondents paid an amount of Rs.20,550/- as part amount and not paid the balance amount of Rs.72,410/- without any valid grounds. They are negligent in making payment inspite of his oral and written requests. Therefore, they found deficiency in their services and accordingly he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it.


3. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in this case through their advocate filed their joint written version by denying all the allegations made against them. They have contended that, the material supplied by the Complainant are of sub standard one. They got examined all the materials from Forest Department Officials, they submitted their report on 18/02/2002 by stating that the wood used for those furnitures are of sub standard quality as such, they requested the Complainant to take back the entire consignment. Thereafter, they sent reminders to him, but he has not replaced those furnitures by supplying the furnitures as per the specifications and terms and conditions of tender. The Complainant is not a consumer. There is no service to be provided by the Respondents. There is no deficiency in their services. The work undertaken by the Complainant is for commercial purpose. The Complaint filed by him is barred by limitation. The dispute in between the parties is involving complex factual questions which are to be decided only on detailed evidences of the parties and thereby this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the subject matter of this complaint and accordingly they prayed for to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost among other grounds.


4. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;

1.
Whether the Complainant proves that he supplied wooden furnitures worth of Rs.92,960/- to the Respondents as per specifications and terms and conditions of tender for which the Respondents made part payment amount of Rs.20,550/- and not paid balance amount of Rs.72,410/- on untenable grounds inspite of several oral and written requests and thereby both Respondents found under the guilty of their deficiency in services towards him?

2.
Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in this complaint?

3.
To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?

//POINTS//

5. Our findings on the above points are as under.
Point No.1:
In Negative.


Point No.2:
In Negative.

Point No.3:
In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;

//REASONS//

Point Nos.1 & 2: -


6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1, documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 are marked. No Written Arguments filed. On the other hand, the affidavit evidence of Respondent No.2 was filed, he was noted as R.W.1. Documents Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.9 are marked. Written Arguments filed.

7. On perusal of contents of complaint, affidavit evidence of P.W.1 and the facts stated by the Respondents in their written version and in the affidavit evidence of R.W.1, it is a fact that, the Complainant received an order from the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for supply of wooden furnitures worth of Rs.92,960/- as per tender called for. It is a fact that, in pursuance of that work order, the Complainant supplied materials to the Respondents. Part amount of Rs.20,550/- was paid by the Respondent No.1 to the Complainant towards supply of those wooden furnitures.

8. With these undisputed facts, now we have to see the case of Complainant and Respondents separately as pleaded by them. As per the pleadings of Para No.5 on Page No.3 of complaint, he claimed that he got inspected the quality of furnitures manufactured by him from Assistant Director, Taluka Industries, Bellary who is an authority of qualitative control and after inspection, he gave his report by stating that furnitures supplied by the Complainant are as per specifications mentioned in the order issued by the Respondent No.1.
9. In Para No.6 of his complaint, it is pleaded by Complainant that the Respondents are contending that furnitures supplied by him are of sub standard quality, therefore, the Respondent No.2 directed him to get inspected all those wooden furnitures from the Forest Department. Further he pleaded that, the inspection report of Forest Department as noted the legs of furnitures are of sub standard teakwood and other wooden parts of them are of general wood and plywood. This is incorrect. One authority inspected the furnitures and certified the quality of wood as the wood is as per the specifications and terms and conditions of tender, hence, the report of Forest Department cannot be looked into.

10. Counter to the above pleadings of Complainant, the Respondents in their written version contended that, it is the duty of Complainant to supply the furnitures as per the tender notification with regard to quality of wood, quality of work, mode of supply and other terms and conditions which includes right of them to cancel the work order. Further they have pleaded that they have got examined the furnitures through Forest Department and their report dated: 18/02/2002 shows the sub standard wood used by the Complainant in manufacturing those furnitures. Therefore, they have requested the Complainant to take back the all the furnitures.

11. These are the disputed facts in between the parties. The points which are arise for us to decide the dispute in between the parties are;

1.Whether Complainant supplied the wooden furnitures to the Respondents as per his personal undertaking and as per the terms and conditions of tender with regard to quality of wood, quality of work etc. as noted in work order.
2.Further we have to appreciate the report of Asst. Director of Taluka Industries Center, Bellary is correct or as to whether the report of Forest Department who inspected the quality of wood and quality of work as contended by the Respondents is correct. If we accept the report of one Officer then we have to reject the report of other Officers.

3.Further we have to assess independent evidence of parties regarding the quality of wood used for furnitures and quality of work after lapse of eight years only from the available evidence of parties and their documents.

4.Whether the Respondents have right to cancel the work order of Complainant on the ground that the quality of wood used is sub standard.


12. In order to decide above disputed factual questions involves, requires detail evidence of Complainant and evidence of Officers of Forest Department as well as the Assistant Director, Taluka Industries Center, Bellary and detail appreciation of the respective documents on both sides.

13. Admittedly, proceedings under the C.P. Act are essentially summary in nature – the adjudication of involving disputed factual questions should not be taken up and be left to be decided by the civil court – the adjudication of complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of law and not by this Forum. In this regard, we have followed the principles of rulings reported in

(1)2009 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC) 295. Amitabha Das Gupta Vs. United Bank of India.
(2)2009 CTJ (CP) (NCDRC) 165.

14. The facts of the cases in the above said rulings might be different to the facts of this case. However, the principles held in the said rulings are aptly applicable to the facts of this case as such, we are of the view that, the factual issues involved in this case are of complex in nature, it requires detail evidences and appreciation as such, we cannot hold the deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant against the Respondents from the available affidavit evidences and documents. Further we are of the view that, it is proper and just for the Complainant to get decide his case from the competent court of law.

15. In the light of discussions and conclusions arrived at, we have not discussed other points raised by Complainant as well as Respondents in their arguments and accordingly we answered Point No.1 in Negative.

16. In view of findings on Point No.1, the Complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. Hence, we answered Point No.2 in Negative.


Point No.3: -

17. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;

//ORDER//

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed, leaving the parties at their own respective costs.




Inform the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum this 16th day of March 2009).

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT FORUM, BELLARY.

MEMBER,

DISTRICT FORUM, BELLARY.