AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The complainant got himself enrolled under a scheme of Haryana Government where-under subsidy was paid to the farmers who built a green house and cultivated healthy crops, which included capsicum. The OP submitted two quotations; one dated 12.09.2015 and the other dated 14.09.2015 to the complainant for erection of the green house at a cost of Rs.25,90,000/- each. The work was to be completed by 27.12.2015. As per the terms and conditions of the quotation which was submitted by the OP to the complainant, 50% of the cost was payable on confirmation, 40% of the cost was payable on the material arriving at the site and remaining 10% was payable before start of the execution of the work. The case of the complainant is that the work started only in mid- October 2015 and was left incomplete in May' 2016. This is also the case of the complainant that the material used was substandard and not as per the specifications given in the quotation. According to the complainant, he therefore, had to purchase material from other suppliers and engage labour etc. for completing the work which he was able to complete by July 2016. Alleging negligence on the part of the OP in rendering services to him, the complainant is before this Commission seeking a sum of Rs.12,85,000/- towards the expenditure incurred by him in getting the work completed and compensation amounting to Rs.1,05,60,000/- on account of delay in completion of the work. The case of the complainant is that on account of delay in completion of the work, he was unable to carry out plantation during one season.
The complaint has been resisted by the OP which has admitted the quotations given to the complainant and has inter-alia stated in its written version that the complainant failed to make payment as per the schedule submitted in the quotation and as a result, the work started late with the consent of the complainant. It is pointed out in the written version that Rs.32,00,000/- which constituted about 50% of the project cost, was paid only by 06.11.2015. The OP has also claimed that the work was completed in time and a few days delay, if any, happened on account of execution of the extra work which the complainant had entrusted to the OP. The OP has also denied having used inferior material for execution of the work.
The first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the OP had completed the work entrusted to him by the complainant and if so, whether there was any delay in completion of the work. This is not the case of the OP that the work was left incomplete by him, his case being that the work was completed in time and a few days delay may have resulted on account of the execution of the extra work. No documentary evidence has been produced by the OP to prove that the work was actually completed by him. Had the work been completed as per the agreement between the parties, the OP would have formally handed over the work so executed by him to the complainant under acknowledgment. The very fact that there is no document evidencing handing over of the completed work to the complainant, indicates that the work was left incomplete. This inference finds corroboration from the complainant having purchased material from several other suppliers and having also incurred expenditure on the labour required for completion of the work which he had assigned to the OP. There is no documentary proof of any extra work having been executed by the OP, on the request of the complainant. Had any extra work been entrusted, the cost of such extra work would have been settled between the parties. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the work entrusted by the complainant to the OP was left incomplete sometime in May 2016.
The case of the complainant is that as per the agreement between the parties, the work was to be completed by 27.12.2015. There is a specific averment to this effect in para 3 of the Consumer Complaint. In the corresponding para of the written version, the OP has not specifically denied that the work was agreed to be completed by 27.12.2015, the stand taken by the OP being that the work was completed in time. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the work ought to have been completed by 27.12.2015 but was left incomplete in around May 2016.
As per the terms of payment given in the quotation, 50% of the cost of the work was payable on confirmation meaning thereby that the said amount ought to have been paid on acceptance of the quotation by the complainant. Admittedly, the said payment to the extent of 50% of the cost was not made prior to 06.11.2015, only Rs.6,00,000/- having been paid before that date. Therefore, the complainant himself was responsible for the delayed commencement of the work. As noted earlier, next 40% of the cost was to be paid at the time of arrival of the goods at the site and the balance 10% payment was to be made before commencement of the work. This would mean that the entire 100% payment had to be made before commencement of the work. This is not even the case of the complainant that he had paid 100% of the cost of the work before the work actually commenced at the site. Therefore, it is evident that the delay in commencement of the work is attributable to the complainant he having failed to make payment in terms of the quotation accepted by him.
Though the case of the complainant is that the work was to be completed by 27.12.2015, it is an admitted position that the work continued beyond that date and was left only in May 2016. There is no evidence of the complainant having either refused permission to the OP to execute the work after 27.12.2015 or even having given any notice to him stating therein that the execution of the work had been delayed by him without any concurrence from the complainant. Had the complainant not been responsible for the delay in execution of the work, by not making payment as per the schedule given in the quotation, the least he would have done was to send a notice/letter to the OP stating therein that the execution of the work had been delayed by him. These circumstances indicate that the timeline of 27.12.2015 for completion of the work was extended by the complainant he having not made payment in time and that was the reason he allowed the OP to continue executing the work till May 2016 without even writing a letter to him holding him responsible for the delay in the commencement and execution of the work. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to hold the OP responsible for the delay in execution of the work.
The complainant claims to have incurred expenditure of Rs.12,63,719/- in getting the work completed by purchasing additional material and engaging labour/labour contractors. The complainant has placed on record the invoices, receipts etc. showing purchased material worth Rs.11,13,000/- and has also filed receipts of Rs.1,50,000/- towards labour charges thereby making a total expenditure of Rs.12,63,719/-.
It is true that the complainant has not examined the vendors who had issued the invoices nor has he filed their affidavit by way of evidence. However, this is also a fact that the OP has not led any evidence to prove the cost of completion of the work which was left incomplete by him, the case of the OP being that the work was completed by him by May 2016. The aforesaid plea taken by the OP does not stand substantiated. This is not the case of the OP that the balance work could be got executed at a lesser cost. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the documents filed by the complainant to show the expenditure incurred by him in getting the work completed by purchasing additional material and engaging labour/labour contractors. I hold that the complainant is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the OP.
Though the complainant has claimed more than Rs.1 Crore towards compensation towards the profit he would have made by cultivating coloured capsicum in the green house and selling the same to an assured buyer who had agreed in advance to purchase the produce at the price of Rs.65 per kg, the complainant in my opinion, is not entitled to any such compensation, he himself being responsible for the delay in execution of the work by not making payment as per the schedule given in the quotation and he having consented for the work to continue till May 2016. This is complainant's own case that coloured capsicum is cultivated in winter. Therefore, the season for cultivating colured capsicum was already lost by May 2016 and this is complainant's own case that the work had been got completed by him by July 2016. Therefore, the loss of cultivation is not attributable to the OP.
However, in addition to the expenditure incurred by him in getting the work completed, the complainant is also entitled to some compensation for the mental agony and harassment which he had undergone on account of the OP having left the work unexecuted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in my opinion, would be appropriate. Out of the total contracted cost of Rs.51,80,000/-, there is proof of the complainant having paid only Rs.50,01,600/- to the OP, leaving a balance of Rs.1,78,400/-.The aforesaid amount has to be deducted from this amount of Rs.12,63,719/-.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the complaint is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.10,85,319/- to the complainant towards the cost of completion of the work which the OP had left incomplete.
(ii) The OP shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.10,85,319/- with effect from the date of institution of this complaint till the date of payment.
(iii) The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him.
(iv) The OP shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.
(v) The payment in terms of this order shall be made within three months from today.