KANTI KUMAR vs DIVISIONAL MANAGER, FAIR PRICE, JAndK STATE FOREST CORPORATION, JAMMU

THE complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 21,025.13 for supply of twenty Deodar Sleepers of timber to the opposite party which were duly sanctioned on 17.11.94. This was a part of 75 sleepers he had bargained for. THE money was paid through a Bank Draft not denied by the opposite party and is dated 15.11.95. THE timber was not, however, supplied to the complainant as agreed. He was not even intimated as to when the delivery will be made. THE case of the complainant is that even though he visited the opposite party on number of times he was not granted any relief and in this way he has suffered a loss due to the deficiency of service by the opposite party. THE case of the complainant is that he had to raise a construction for which the timber was required and due to the deficiency of service by opposite party he has suffered damages in the form of damage to the stores procured for construction, due to wrong withholding of his money by the opposite party and also due to the fact that he had to purchase the timber from the open market on a date when the prices thereof had increased.

THE defence of the opposite party is that even though the complainant visited them thrice he did not lift the timber on the plea that it was not of the standard for which he had bargained and that thereafter the position of stocks in the depot worsened and they are prepared to abide by the commitment if the stocks arrive. It is also stated that the complainant has failed to describe the kind of damage undergone by him due to this deficient service by the opposite party. We have recorded statements of the witnesses of the parties and there is hardly any need for us to make a detailed reference to the same. Suffice to say that the testimony adduced by the parties tailors to the requirements of the pleas raised by them.

Now after careful consideration of the facts of the case we find that there is no controversy on the basic facts such as undertaking to supply the material duly sanctioned in favour of the complainant, the receipt of the advance by the Bank Draft. The only defence raised by the opposite party is that the complainant himself failed to lift the timber and that having done so the stocks were exhausted and it was in these circumstances that the opposite party failed to, keep the commitment.

WE are not satisfied with the defence of the opposite party. The money was deposited in the month of November, 1994 and the Forest Corporation cannot claim that ever since that date it has not sold any timber. The fact of the matter is that he had visited them thrice according to their own admission but no timber was lifted because the complainant felt that it was not according to the specifications for which he had bargained. It is nowhere stated that he had bargained for the timber which was offered. The complainant, therefore, was justified in rejecting the offer as it was not of the quality he had paid for. The Consumer is always entitled to receive exactly what he bargains for. He cannot be forced to take anything which is being offered. The case of the complainant is that he was never asked to lift the timber. Under the circumstances there is no option for us but to believe him. It is in this situation the opposite party has come out with the version that the stock position has worsened and the timber is not available. Even now their defence is evasive inasmuch as they say if and when timber is received we are prepared to release it. This is so said despite the fact that from November, 1994 the Forest Corporation was never sitting idle and it has fetched revenue to the State by the sale of the timber.

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, the non-supply of the timber in the present case despite the sanction and receipt of advance is a deliberate one and the denial is outcome of some mischief. It is clear case of negligence and also the deficiency of service. The Forest Corporation must take a note of it that even though it has a monopoly it has no business to treat its customers in such a manner. The man who pays for the goods is not only entitled to get exactly what he pays for but is also entitled to due respect and honor. The complainant in the absence of the supply being made had to fend for himself and he had to purchase the timber from the open market at higher rates. This situation has been forced upon him and it must have caused him some loss. In the circumstances of this case, therefore, we direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 21,025.13 to the complainant with 18% interest from the date of draft till the date of final payment. Having regard to the sufferings and the financial loss to which he has been put and having regard to the fact that he had to resort to litigation we allow a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- to him on account of compensation and costs. The entire amounts must be paid by the opposite party within six weeks from the date of this order. We direct the Forest Corporation to pay the amount of interest and compensation from its own funds subject to domestic inquiry about the officer/official responsible for neglect and then recover the same from his pay or pensionary dues whatever is due. A certified copy of this order be given to the parties to be collected by them at their own within a week''s time. The complaint is disposed of. Complaint disposed of.