Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 2946
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, Presiding Member, AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM VSM (RETD.), Member
GROUND WATER SURVEYS & DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MAHARASHTRA STATE – Appellant
Versus
M/S. UNIDATA AUSTRALIA PVT. LTD. – Respondent
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. NC/OP/93/2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Rahul Kumar, Mr Shivam Singh B, Ms Anisha Mathur, Ms Himani Kalra
For the Respondents: Mr N L Ganapati, Ms Jeta Shree
The complaint was held time-barred under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act due to failure to file within the prescribed two-year period.
Headnote:This complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleges deficiency in service in the supply of ground water survey instruments by the Opposite Party and prays for compensation for deficiency in service under the Act. The Complainant, a government body under the State of Maharashtra, engaged in providing groundwater infrastructure, specifically alleged defective supply of Digital Water Level Recorders and Data Retrieval Systems by the Opposite Parties, leading to substantial operational losses. The court found that the Opposite Parties failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, resulting in irreparable financial losses and damage to the Complainant’s reputation. The complaint was determined to be beyond the prescribed period of limitation according to Section 24-A, hence, it was held time-barred and dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractual obligations and supply details (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. claims of damages and operational losses (Para 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 3. time-barred complaint summary (Para 26 , 28 , 39) |
ORDER
PER SUBHASH CHANDRA
1. This complaint filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) alleges deficiency in service in the supply of ground water survey instruments by the Opposite Party and prays for compensation for deficiency in service under the Act.
2. Upon notice, opposite party no.3 and 4 contested the complaint by way of written statement, Complainant thereafter filed their rejoinder. Evidence by way of affidavit was not filed by the Opposite Parties. Respective Short synopses of arguments were also filed by complainant and opposite party no. 3, 4, 5 to 10 and 12.
3. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and carefully considered the material on the record. Opposite Party no. 1 and opposite party no.2 were placed ex-parte on 07.07.2009 and 12.03.2010 respectively. Opposite Party No. 11 was placed ex parte on 03.02.2012 and Opposite Party nos.5 to 10 and 12 on 13.03.2025 as they remained unrepresented despite notices and several opportunities to argue.
4. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is the In-Charge Director of the Ground Water Surveys & Development Agency (GSDA), a government body functioning under the Water Supply & Sanitation Ministry of the State of Maharashtra, with its office at Bhujal Bhawan, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. The primary mandate of GSDA is the development of adequate infrastructure related to groundwater resources for public benefit, particularly for the rural population and agriculturists, and the agency as a not-for-profit entity.
5. In order to provide updated scientific data and to establish a comprehensive Hydrological Information System for the State of Maharashtra, the complainant invited global bids during 1999–2000 for the procurement of Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLRs) and Data Retrieval Systems (DRS) with financing by the World Bank under the Hydrology Project. The purpose of the procurement was to strengthen the State’s infrastructure for groundwater management, especially in drought-prone areas.
6. Opposite Party No.1, M/s. Unidata Australia Pvt. Ltd., participated in the bid process through its Director as a manufacturer and supplier of Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLRs), acting through its authorized dealer, Opposite Party No.2. Opposite Party No.3 is the General Manager of the holding company of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 are alleged to be jointly, severally, and vicariously liable for the discharge of the obligations under the said contract. Opposite Parties Nos.6 to 11 as shareholders of Opposite Party No.1, and Opposite Party No.5 acted on their behalf in matters relating to the transfer, restructuring, or merger of Opposite Party No.1 with Opposite Party No.4. Opposite Party No.12 is also stated to be one a shareholder of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.4 took over all liabilities and obligations of Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 arising under the contract, and is therefore alleged by the Complainant to be equally responsible for the performance of the said contractual duties.
7. The complainant purchased 391 Digital Water Level Recorders (DWLR) and 39 data Retrival Systems (DRS) units for a total consideration of Australian dollars (AUD) 5,12,560 (equivalent to Rs.89,91,452/- at the time), which was duly paid. It was stipulated that the Opposite Parties would provide technical support, maintenance, and replacement services within the warranty period at no extra cost. The contract further provided for jurisdiction under Indian law, with disputes to be governed accordingly.
8. The contract required Opposite Parties to perform their scope of work within a stipulated period from the date of opening of the Letter of Credit, with time being the essence of the agreement. However, Opposite Partie
