DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT vs BLUE HILLS ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.

THIS Complaint Petition has been filed by the Director of Panchayat and Rural Development against the Opposite Party, namely, M / s. Blue Hills Engineering Private Limited. The Director got a sanction of Rs. 18,59,375.00 for purchasing 12 Nos. of jeep and one canter truck in the year 1988-89. Orders were placed with the Respondent M/s. Blue Hills Engineering Limited for supply of six nos. of Tempotrux (jeep) vehicles out of twelve nos. of jeep vide letter No. PDDP 39/88/1974 dated 21.7.1990 costing Rs. 8,28,755.76 @ Rs. 1,38,125.96 per vehicle as per proforma bill submitted by the opposite party and an agreement was signed on 17.8.90 between the parties with the condition that the vehicles shall be supplied within 30 days from the receipt of payment failing which interest @ 18% would be leviable. It was also agreed to between the parties that the Respondent would refund the excess of the price of the D.C.S. & D. rate if found less than the rate quoted by the opposite party. Payment was duly made as per terms of agreement but the opposite party supplied only five nos. of vehicles on different dates, i.e. on 10.4.91,8.10.91,18.12.91 and 6.4.92. Amount was paid by the Complainant on 6.9.90 In other words the opposite party failed to supply one vehicle costing Rs. 1,38,125.96. Other vehicles were also not delivered within one month as per agreement. Hence the present petition has been filed claiming an amount of Rs. 1,73,007.93 till December, 1992.

IN the written statement filed, the opposite party has taken the plea that in the meantime the price of the vehicle has gone up and that apart the D-Form under relevant law of Sales Tax was not furnished by the complainant. The other allegations are not disputed. Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Government Advocate. It may be stated that when the petition was called out for hearing, Mr. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner was not available. However, subsequently Mr. Baruah was heard and also submitted written argument.

According to Mr. Baruah there was an attempt to compromise the matter and a compromise formula was also given to the complainant. However, we find that the compromise will take long time to be considered by the Government as it was given by the Joint Director and for compromise of such matter, approval of the State Government is necessary. Therefore, it was decided to take up the matter by this Commission.

IT is not disputed that out of six vehicles only, one vehicle was not delivered by the opp. party though the opposite party has claimed that due to non-delivery of ''D'' Form within time the vehicle could not be delivered and in the meantime price also increased. Mr. Baruah has submitted that an enhanced bill was also submitted after receipt of the ''D'' Form on 22.1.91 According to Mr. Baruah there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party as vehicles could not be delivered due to absence of ''D'' Form from the complainant. After due consideration we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Baruah as we find from the complaint petition that the five vehicles were delivered within the period from 8.10.91 to 6.4.92. Therefore, the plea cannot be accepted. That apart there was a written agreement entered between the parties and the terms are binding on both the parties.

AT the time of execution of the agreement, the price of each vehicle was Rs. 1,38,125.96. Therefore, due to non-delivery of one vehicle and in view of the agreement between the parties, the complainant is entitled to recover the above amount. We accordingly direct the opposite party to refund the above amount within a period of 3 months from today. Regarding compensation, we are of the opinion that in view of the agreement, the complainant is entitled only to get interest @ 18% on the above amount. As the vehicles were to be delivered within one month from the date of execution of the agreement, we direct that the interest shall be calculated from 1.10.1990. Though Mr. Singh has urged that as the agreement was executed on 17.8.90 and vehicles were supposed to be delivered within one month from that date and, therefore, the interest has to be paid after expiry of one month, but we are giving one month grace period to the opposite party for calculating the interest in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. With the above directions, the petition is disposed off. No costs. Complaint allowed.