w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Katra Phytochem (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore v/s M/s Pure & Pristine Solutions, Pune, represented by its Managing Director & Another

    Complaint Case No. 97 of 2013

    Decided On, 15 June 2021

    At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. RAVISHANKAR
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI
    By, MEMBER

    For the Complainant: M/s. Lawyers Inc, Advocates. For the Opposite Parties: N. Udaya Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Ravishankar, Judicial Member

The complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice in fixing the defective water treatment plant as agreed. Hence, prays for direction against the Opposite Party to complete the stabilization of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) as per the specifications vide purchase order and to pay a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- plus Rs.18,00,000/- damages along with interest @ 14% pa and also prays for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice.

2. The facts of the case is as under:-

The complainant established a unit for post-harvest processing of agri products and it has its factory satiated at Sy.No.333A, B and C, Teligi Village, Harapana Halli Taluk, Davanagere District and the Opposite Party is having a business of designing, supply, installation and maintenance of Effluent Treatment Plant having its Corporate office at Pune and the Opposite Party agreed to supply, install and commission the effluent treatment plant in the factory premises of the complainant and the Opposite Party canvassed that they are leading engineering consulting organization specialized in water and waste water/Industrial Effluent Treatment Solutions and also endeavor to provide state of the art technology, sourcing components of Global standards and provide cost effective solutions with high service orientation and also promised with a quick delivery and provides 24X7 services, 365 days year.

2(a) Believing the canvass made by Opposite Party, the complainant placed the order with Opposite Party for supply, installation and commissioning of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) in the factory premises of the complainant. The Opposite Party has charged towards said supply, installation and commissioning of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- and they insisted to pay 30% as an advance towards cost and 10% amount on receipt of full set of detailed drawings at site,50% on receipt of the copy of the document, 5% of the amount on commissioning and completion of the trial and balance 5% of the amount after four months from the date of commissioning. Accordingly, the complainant had paid 80% of the amount even before commissioning the Plant in the complainant’s Factory premises. According, the complainant placed an order on 21.03.2012 for supply, installation and commissioning of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) vide proposal reference No.3005/PRODUCTS/2011 and the purchase order dated:21.03.2012 bearing reference No.KPIPL/HRR/PO-001/EQP.

2(b) The Opposite Party had received Rs.12,00,000/- vide cheque dated:22.03.2012 as an advance and again a cheque for Rs.4,00,000/- was received on 23.05.2012, Rs.8,00,000/- cheque on 08.08.2012 and another cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- on 27/08/2012. Thus, the Opposite Party has received Rs.32,00,000/- out of Rs.40,00,000/-. Even after the receipt of the said amount, the Opposite Party has not supplied, installed and commissioned the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) till the end of May 2012. The Opposite Party has accepted the purchase order and thereby agreed to supply and deliver all the equipment within 6 to 7 weeks to the site. But by the end of May 2012 against the promise made by the Opposite Party, have sent only some equipments and again they have supplied a Vaccum Band Press (VBP) which is an important component of the Plant only in the month of August 2012. After supply of these materials the Opposite Party never commissioned the said Plant and remained dis-functional. In spite of repeated requests and reminder through “e’ Mail, the Opposite Party instead of making VBI functional started demanding more money and tried to get away from the project by leaving the complainant in lurch. The Opposite Party supposed to complete the work before releasing payments and therefore the complainant made so many correspondences through “e” mails, but the Opposite Party not responded to the request made by the complainant.

2 (c) The complainant further alleges that the Opposite Party miserably failed to deliver the functional ETP despite taking unreasonable time to complete the Plant. Subsequently, one Mr.Basavaraju, representative of Opposite Party after 4 days of trial, admitted that the desired output is not there and hence he require to discuss with the superiors in the company. In this regard also the complainant made “e” mail correspondences, but the Opposite Party failed and neglected to render a prompt service as agreed. The Opposite Party was not able to run through the trials and not demonstrated the system can work. The Opposite Party also failed and neglected the mistakes and could not commission the plant as per the agreed terms and also noted that the ETP is not branded equipment. The defective in the product occurred while executing the work itself. Being the service provider, the Opposite Party has to rectify the mistake and it is not possible for the complainant to get the defective rectified through the 3rd party service provider. Hence, the complainant suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- which was paid towards the said supply, installation and commission of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) . Hence, alleges unfair trade practice against the Opposite Party and prays for refund of the entire amount paid towards the said supply, installation and commission of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) along with compensation as prayed above.

3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party appeared through counsel, but not filed any version. In spite of sufficient opportunities provided to him to take defense. Subsequently, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.1 to C23 and C.25 to C.28.

4. We have heard the arguments.

5. On perusal, the following points will arise for our consideration;

(1) Whether the complaint deserves to be allowed?

(2) What Order?

6. The findings to the above points are;

(1) Partly Affirmative

(2) As per final Order

REASONS:

Point Nos. (1) & (2):-

7. On going through the pleadings, affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, we noticed that he ordered for supply, install and commissioning of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to his Company where he was running a post harvest processing of agricultural products in survey No.333A, B and C, Teligi Village, Harapana Halli Taluk. The agreed amount is Rs.40,00,000/- towards supply, installation and commissioning of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) plant. After receipt of the 90% of the consideration amount, the Opposite Party even though have supplied Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) but not installed properly and it was not working as per the promise made by the Opposite Party. The complainant has produced documents to show that he had paid an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- by way of cheque i.e. Ex.C5 and statement of account. We also noticed that the complainant had made en number of “e” mail correspondences towards proper installation of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP). But one Mr.Basavaraju had visited the place of the complainant and made a trial for four days where it was not working properly, against which the complainant made so-many correspondences for rectifying the mistakes in the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) to work as per the plan and diagram. But the Opposite Party not responded.

8. We noticed here that even though the Opposite Party appeared before this Commission had not taken any defense with respect to the allegations made by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant had produced Ex.C5 to C23 to show that he had made ‘N’ number of correspondences. Subsequently, the complainant also issued a legal notice dated:18/03/2013 calling upon the Opposite Party to make Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) functional, but no result were found. Hence, filed a complaint.

9. It is established by the complainant that the Opposite Party had rendered unfair trade practice in spite of supply of Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) equipment having not installed properly and made it functional. As such he is entitled to get refund of the entire amount paid towards Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP). The complainant is also entitled to get a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

in not making Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) as functional as required by the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER: The complaint is allowed in part with cost. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.32,00,000/- (Thirty Two Lakhs only) to the complainant along with 6% from the date of complaint till realization. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs Only) towards unfair trade practice and Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost/litigation expenses. The Opposite Parties are directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of this order, Failing which the complainant is at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings as against Opposite Parties as per Consumer Protection Act. Send a copy of this order to both parties.
O R