A.R.CHADHA vs SUBHASH CHANDER

THIS appeal has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 9th October, 1990 of the District Forum, Delhi.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 4,900/- for the purchase of 10 drums of cement with the defendant, on 23rd December, 1989. The amount include Rs. 2,000/- as security for the drums. He was informed that the delivery would be made on 26th & 27th December'' 1989. It is alleged by the complainant that he asked his Contractor to arrange Labour for laying DPC of his house in Faridabad on those days. However, the defendant failed to deliver the Cement on both the days and as a result, he had to pay to the contractor a sum of Rs. 1,395/- as the cost of labour for 3 days, as they could not do the work in the absence of cement. It is consequently, prayed that the respondent be directed to make payment of the loss suffered by him. The complaint was contested by the defendant who pleaded that the defendant was not liable to pay the losses as alleged by the complainant, because the defendant never took any responsibility to supply the cement at the residence of the complainant. The complain- ant, it is alleged could take the bags himself from their godown at any time.

The learned District Forum held that the complainant was entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,395/-. Consequently, the defendant was directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within a month. The defendant has come up in appeal to the Commission.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no clause in the agreement that the cement was to be supplied by the appellant to the complainant at his house in Faridabad and the Forum has misinterpreted the order-form which contains the conditions of supply of cement. We regret our inability to accept the contention. We have seen the order-form wherein it was specifically stated by the complainant that the cement should be made available at his house No. 553, Sector 28, Faridabad. The said condition was accepted by the appellant as they agreed to supply the cement by receiving the price without scoring out the condition. Therefore, they now cannot be allowed to say that it was not agreed that the cement was to be supplied at the house of the respondent at Faridabad Faced with this situation, the Counsel for the appellant urged that there was no evidence on the record which proved that the labour charges were paid by the respondent for 3 days to the contractor whom he had entrusted the work. We do not find any substance in this contention also. The respondent has filed a bill of the contractor in which he has claimed Rs. 1,395/- from the respondent. It is mentioned on the bill that the respondent had made the payment to the contractor of the said amount. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is a document on the record to support the case of the respondent.

FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. As no one was present before us on behalf of the respondent at the time of arguments, therefore, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _____________