Premierworld Technology Limited vs Chief Officer, Municipal Commissioner

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

This Appeal assails the order dated 31.03.2015 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short “the State Commission”) allowing Complaint No.151 of 2003 and directing the Appellant to pay ₹14,30,402/- to the Complainant within three months, failing which with interest @ 12% p.a. till realization holding that the Appellant was liable for deficiency in service in installation of fountains tendered by the Respondent in a defective manner.  By way of this Appeal, the Appellant seeks setting aside of this order and for such orders as deemed fit and proper.

The delay of 54 days in filing of this Appeal is condoned for the reasons set out in IA No.4579 of 2015 and in the interest of justice.

The facts, in brief, are that the Respondent, which is a local body-Municipal Council had called for tenders dated 28.05.1999 for bids to install fountains, including a musical fountain in order to promote tourism.  The Appellant was awarded the contract after due process and the said fountains were installed.  However, it failed to function as per the required specifications despite several efforts of the Appellant to rectify the same.

The Compliant was contested by the Appellant contending that the fountain could not work properly on account of fluctuation of voltage, delay in completion of civil works and the increase in the length of the cable on account of site conditions.  The State Commission held that installation of fountain in working condition was the obligation of the Appellant based on its expertise and that the counter allegation in respect of non-performance of the foundation by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was an attempt by the Appellant to absolve itself of its liability.

The Appeal is based on several contentions, including (i) that the Respondent was not a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act being a local body; (ii) the State Commission failed to appreciate that the fountain was installed at a distance of 100 meters from the control panel as against the required 30 meters which led to voltage fluctuation and the fact that the voltage was generally low in the evening hours in Sawantwadi city (iii) no expert evidence had been tendered under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act to conclude that there was a manufacturing defect in the fountains and (iv) the onus to prove the allegations in the Complaint were upon the Complainant/Respondent which had not been discharged.

On the preliminary objection that the Respondent is not entitled to be considered a consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act being a local body, it is evident that as per Section 2(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, ‘Complainants’ includes “the Central Government or any State Government” and that a local body under the Constitution is considered “State”.  This contention of the Appellant, therefore, cannot be considered.

On merits, it is seen that the State Commission has held that the Appellant has failed to provide services of a functioning fountain as was required under the terms of the tender.  It is not contended that there was a manufacturing defect in the said fountains.  The State Commission has also not concluded that there was a manufacturing defect.  Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the condition precedent mandated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act has not been met, cannot be considered.  It is an admitted fact that the fountain failed to perform as was required in terms of the tender.  The Appellant also made several efforts to rectify the error which did not yield any results.  It is also not the case of the Appellant that the fountains functioned properly.  The issue of voltage fluctuation had also been addressed by the Respondent by providing for a separate control panel.  Therefore, the contentions of the Appellant cannot be considered.

For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the Appellant.  Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission.  The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the order of the State Commission is affirmed.

Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of with this order.