Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CALCUTTA
Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) A.K. Bhattacharya, President;
Mr. Sunil Kanti Kar & Mrs. S. Dutta, Members
INDRANI MUKHERJEE––Appellant
versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION—Respondent
S.C. Case No. 482/0 of 1993
A consumer is entitled to compensation for losses suffered due to deficiency in service by a corporation.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(d) - DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE - SUPPLY OF DEFECTIVE TANKER - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant purchased a truck chassis with a loan from West Bengal Financial Corporation under the Additional Employment Scheme and deposited Rs. 10,000 as earnest money and Rs. 57,000 as security deposit with the Opposite Party (OP) for supplying and mounting a tanker on the chassis. OP failed to supply the tanker in a timely manner and provided a defective tanker, causing the complainant to suffer financial losses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the OP was deficient in its service by failing to supply the tanker in a timely manner and providing a defective tanker, resulting in financial losses for the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum. 2. Whether the OP is liable for deficiency in service. 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the losses suffered.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applies to all goods and services, including those provided by corporations. 2. The court found that the OP was deficient in its service by failing to supply the tanker in a timely manner and providing a defective tanker, resulting in financial losses for the complainant. 3. The court awarded compensation to the complainant for the losses suffered, including the value of the chassis purchased with interest, the security deposit, and the earnest money.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the OP was directed to pay compensation to the complainant for the losses suffered, including the value of the chassis purchased with interest, the security deposit, and the earnest money.
Dr. Sunil Kanti Kar, Member—The instant complaint has been filed against the Opposite Party, Indian Oil Corporation, the Opposite Party No. 1 alleging deficiency in service and claiming Rs. 9,04,608/- as damages and, or compensation suffered by the complainant together with interest @ 25% and for other reliefs and the complainant has further claimed the refund of Rs. 57,000/- which was kept as security and Rs. 10,000/- paid earnest money with the Opposite Party against mounting up of a tanker on the chasis supplied by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that she took as loan a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- from West Bengal Financial Corporation, the Opposite Party No. 2 @ 19% per annum interest and other sources for purchasing a chasis of a truck for starting her business of carrying bulk LPG to different places on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. The Opposite Party No. 1 failed and/or neglected to supply and mount up the tanker on the chasis of the truck and made enormous delay since 29.4.1991 in supplying the tanker and lastly supplied on 23.7.1991 and that the complainant stated in her petition that during the said period she could not do her business and suffered a lot and could not earn anything due to negligence in rendering service by the Opposite Party to the complainant as per contract. It was settled that the complainant would get carrying charges at the rate of 66.09 paise per kilometer per Ton and the complainant was supposed to run her truck atleast 400 kilometer’s per day and taking 25 working days in a month, she would carry atleast 10 Tons of LPG in a tanker and thus total income for 3 months would fetch Rs. 1,99,800/- (Approx.). After leaving the incidental expenses on account of fuel etc. she could have earned Rs. 1,40,000/- during that period from 29.4.91 to 24.7.1991. It is further the case of the complainant that although the tanker was supplied on 24.7.1991 by the O.P. No. 1 the said tanker was found to be defective and old one and it was repaired at the cost of the complainant. The complainant had to incur expenses of Rs. 40,000/- for repairing of the tanker and mounting it on the chasis for which the Opposite Party No. 1 remitted Rs. 27,739/- leaving balance of Rs. 12,261/- yet to be paid by the Opposite Party No. 1. During the repairing of the tanker, it was laid idle upto 12.11.1991 thus causing damages and loss of business to the extent of Rs. 1,79,289/- to the complainant.
3. The complainant has further claimed Rs. 16,116/- on account of negligence of the Opposite Party No. 1 for not providing with purging certificate for which the complainant's truck had to return from Barauni without any business and in such manner the complainant has claimed damages and compensation on account of alleged loss of damages and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on so many heads and has claimed an aggregated amount of Rs. 19,04,608/- together with interest @ 25% on the amount from the date of filing of this case until recovery.
4. The Opposite Party No. 1 has contested the complaint by filing written statement, the Opposite Party No. 2, West Bengal Financial Corporation did not contest the case. But the Opposite Party No. 1 challenged the maintainability of this complaint whereby this Commission by its order dated 9.8.1995 Held that the complaint petition is maintainable. The Opposite Party No. 1 after having found the complaint petition is being maintainable filed another application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 invoking clause 35 that as per agreement dated 26th June, 1991, the said clause provides for arbitration in case of any dispute or difference of any nature whatsoever between the parties any claim, cross-claim or set off the corporation against the contractors or regarding any right liability, act, omission on account of any of the Opposite Parties hereto arising out or in relation to this agreement would be referred to the sole arbitrator of the Director, Ma
