Baramulla District Commission Holds Supplier Liable For Supplying Substandard Materials

The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) holds supplier liable for deficiency in service for supplying materials that were not of acceptable quality. Brief facts: The Royal Builders (complainant) placed an order of 3000 PTCC coils (material) with certain specifications from the supplier. On 18th October 2021, the complainant paid Rs.10 lakhs as advance and the material was supplied on 9th November 2021. However, the material was rejected by concerned authorities due to sub-standard quality. The complainant raised this issue with the supplier and a technician was sent to the visiting site. Although, the material was rectified but the quantity was reduced to half. Nonetheless, the supplier assured to deliver the remaining material within 15 days but it failed. The complainant made several requests as the material was for defence supply and it was relevant for national security concerns. Despite several attempts neither the payment was refunded nor the remaining material was supplied. Consequently, the complainant was forced to get the supply from other vendors at inflated costs. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission. The complainant submitted the required documents and evidence affidavits of witnesses. As the supplier didn't appear, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Observation of the District Commission: The Commission observed the documents and noted that the supplier was bound to supply the materials with the specifications, quality and standard as per the agreed contract. The supplier was held liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service as he failed to deliver the remaining material or return the requisite amount. Reliance was placed on Heeralal versus State of Bihar citation 1-1998, wherein the respondent was held liable for failure to provide goods conforming to the agreed specifications constituted a deficiency in service and violation of Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the District Commission directed the supplier to pay Rs. 5 lakhs out of the principal amount as value of the remaining material with 8% interest. Further, they were directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation, Rs. 30,000 as litigation costs along with Rs. 10, 000 deposit towards the Consumer Welfare Fund Baramulla. Case Title: M/S Royal Builders vs. Rahis Mirza & Anr. Case No: Complaint Case No. 45/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Baramulla District Commission Holds Supplier Liable For Supplying Substandard Materials

Amrisha Kumari

Tags