Tribunals and Commissions

Executive Engineer Gosikhurd Dam Division Wahi Pawani vs Hariganga Cement Ltd

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 22 January 1996 · Citation: 1996 1 CLT 559 : 1996 1 CPC 151 : 1996 1 CPJ 299 : 1996 1 CPR 37

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI , B.S.YADAV , S.S.CHADHA , R.THAMARAJAKSHI , S.P.BAGLA J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 300 words
1.

THIS complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Executive Engineer, office of the Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Dam Division, District Bhandara (Maharashtra State) against Shri Harignanga Cement Ltd. and it does not raise a consumer dispute for the reasons stated hereinafter.

2.

THE Irrigation Department of Government of Maharashtra vide its supply order dated 6th March, 1993 had placed orders for the supply of 5000 metric tons non -levy cement for the irrigation project on the opposite party who is a manufacturer. An allotment of 3150 M.T. was made vide allotment letter dated 20.3.93. An amount of Rs. 43,02,040/ - was paid vide cheque No. 915/091428 dated 22.3.93 being the 98% of the cost price of the non -levy cement agreed to be supplied by the opposite party. The cheque was duly encashed. The opposite party supplied only 2020 metric tons non -levy cement to the complainant and did not supply the remaining quantity of 1130 metric tons. The complainant claims an amount of Rs. 15,74,768/ - being the cost price of the balance quantity of cement with interest at the rate of 24% besides compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs for breach of the contract. The complaint does not relate to any defect in the goods supplied but relates to a breach of contract of the sale of goods on the ground of failure of supply the full quantity of goods agreed to be supplied. It is purely a civil liability for which the remedy lies elsewhere it is not a consumer dispute as there are no allegations of any defective goods or deficiency in service. The complaint is dismissed on this short ground leaving the complainant to seek its remedies elsewhere. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.