Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Verma, President;
Mr. S.P. Goyal & Smt. Vidya Sonker, Members
GITA AGARWAL—Appellant
versus
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Respondent
Appeal No. 765/SC of 1992—Decided on 17.6.1993
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2 & 14 - Limitation - Complainant Co. invoked bank guarantee in November 1987 Bank did not make the payment - Complaint was filed in August 1991- Bank guarantee was valid till 4th December 1991 - Bank had never repudiated the claim made by complainant Co.
- Cause of action remained alive till validity of bank guarantee - Complaint was not barred by limitation - State Commission was justified in awarding interest at 16% till bank made the payment but interest should have been allowed from the date when bank Guarantee was invoked. (Paras 6 to 11)
Result: Appeal allowed Partly.
IMPORTANT POINT
When the purchaser firm has furnished bank guarantee in favour of complainant Co. Then complainant Co. is a consumer as against any deficiency in service on the part of bank, as complainant is the beneficiary of the contract of service between it & the firm.
Mr. Justice K.S. Verma, President—This Appeal is arised out of the complaint lodged by Smt. Gita Agarwal. The complaint has been dismissed and the complainant has come up in Appeal before the State Commission.
2. In the complaint of the complainant has set-up claim for damages amounting to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand), on account of poor quality of masonary work, sanitary work and electricity work and has also claimed treatment charges on account of injury caused to the elbow on account of defective masonary work of the floor. The complainant was allotted a house No. R-72, Rajkunj vide letter dated 5.12.88. The entire amount payable was paid on 31.10.1990 but the possession was delivered on 20.11.1991. It is alleged by the complainant while taking the possession the complainant was not satisfied with the quality of masonary work. The complainant narrated the poor quality in material, sanitary fittings and electrical fittings. Due to non-availability of the water the complainant injured her elbow while bringing water from outside pump and spent Rs. 2000/-. On these allegations the complainant claimed certain instalments reliefs including damages.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party. The District Forum recorded a finding that there was no defect in the masonary work. At the time of taking possession the Complainant did not make any objection about quality of masonary work etc. The Distt. Forum has also recorded the finding that the Complainant failed to establish the poor quality of masonary work etc. The Distt. Forum has also found that the injury sustained by the Complainant not on account of any negligence on the part of the opposite party. The Distt. Forum also held that the injury caused to the Complainant has nothing to do with any negligence part on the opposite party. On these findings complaint was dismissed.
4. We have heard the appellant who has pressed all the points raised in the memo of appeal. After having examined the case we find no case is made out for interference.
The Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
_
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
