Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
Pardi Industrial Association—Complainant
versus
Gujarat Industrial development corpn.—Opposite parties
Original Petition No. 133 of 1996—Decided on 28.8.2006
For the Complainant :Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Borthakur, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Anip Sachthey and Mr. Sriniwas Khalap, Advocates.
The complaint must be filed within a reasonable period, and evidence must be sufficient to prove the alleged deficiencies in services.
Headnote:
Deficiency of Services - Government Undertaking - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(u)
Fact of the Case:
Complaint filed by a voluntary association of small scale unit holders against a Government undertaking alleging deficient services and unfair trade practices.
Finding of the Court:
Complaint dismissed on the grounds of limitation and lack of evidence to prove the alleged deficiencies in services.
Issues: Limitation for filing the complaint, continuing cause of action, and sufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint filed after about 10 years of the meeting cannot be said to be within limitation. Lack of evidence to prove the alleged deficiencies in services led to the dismissal of the complaint.
Final Decision: Complaint dismissed, parties to bear their own costs.
Mr. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that complainant is a registered voluntary association of small scale unit holders of opposite party No. 1, Corporation and complaint is being filed on behalf of members whose names are given in Annexure-1 appended to the complaint. Opposite party No. 1 is a Government of Gujarat undertaking and opposite party Nos. 2 to 7 are its officers at Vapi. In order to attract industries the opposite party No. 1 published a booklet on 30.6.1992 with details of facilities and services to be made available to the potential users. It was alleged that after availing of services of opposite party No. 1.-Corporation the unit holders found that the services promised to be rendered were deficient in many respects like non-availability of roads, fire fighting services and inadequate water supply, etc. In the meeting which the complainant had with the opposite parties on 11.4.1986, deficiencies in service were brought to the notice of opposite parties and recorded in the minutes of meeting. Since there has been no improvement in services the complainant appointed Mahohar H. Bhawalkar, Chartered Engineer on 27.3.1995 to visit the site and report about the deficiencies existing in Pardi Industrial Estate at Pardi in the light of said booklet. Shri Bhawalkar gave the report on 25.5.1995 pointing out the deficiencies as set out in detail in para No. 4 of the complaint. It was stated that opposite party No. 1 was not only deficient in providing the promised services but had also indulged in unfair trade practice. It was, therefore, prayed that opposite parties be directed to provide the facilities as promised in the booklet dated 30.6.1982, pay Rs. 85,00,000 to the complainants to remove the deficiencies and further pay to each of unit holder towards compensation the various amounts as shown in Annexure-4 annexed to the complaint.
2. Written version filed by the opposite parties was ordered to be treated as written version only on behalf of opposite party No. 1 as per the order dated 27.11.2001. It was denied in the written version filed on the affidavit of T.K. Pandor that there were deficiencies in many respects like non-availability of road, water supply, non-fire fighting service, etc. as alleged. WBM (Water Bound Macadam) which was motorable, was completed at the time of possession. As per policy after the passage of two monsoons, carpeting work was carried out and a chart giving details of roads of Pardi Industrial Estate in March, 1984 is annexed as Annexure 'A'. Water supply line had been provided at the time of giving possession and connections were given to the parties as and when the parties approached the office of Deputy Executive Engineer at Pardi. A chart giving details of water supply is annexed as Annexure 'B'. It was further alleged that at the time of giving possession the power line had been laid by Gujarat Electricity Board and power was available. Chart giving details of power supply is annexed as Annexure 'F'. It was stated that open storm water drain along the road side had been provided. It was claimed that all basis infrastructural facilities were provided at the time of actual possession to the unit holders. Minutes of the meeting dated 11.4.1986 would show that the issues discussed related to power supply, road, quality of shed construction, septic tank, telephone facilities, etc. Power supply in industrial estate is provided by Gujarat Electricity Board. It was alleged that report of Manohar H. Bhawalkar does not give the correct picture. In case the Industrial Units had suffered any losses, it was because of their own making and the Corporation is not liable to pay any compensation. It was denied that the Corporation had indulged in any unfair trade practice and made false representation in the booklet.
3. Orders dated 4.8.2003 and 12.12.2003 notice that the plea of limitation and non-maintainability of complaint were to be treated as pr
