Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. Vs. Creative Engineering and Construction Company

Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. vs Creative Engineering and Construction Company

Type Court Judgment Court Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh Decided Apr 01, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1113788

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1113788
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Judge: J.B. Garg, President, the Honourable Mr. Sada Nand, Member &Amp; the Honourable Mrs. P. Ojha, Member
Decided On: Apr 01, 1998
Case Number: Complaint Case No. 52 of 1997
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17/12 - Comparative Citation: 1998 (3) CPJ 207

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Eider Pwi Communications Ltd.

Respondent

Creative Engineering and Construction Company

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 17/12 - comparative citation: 1998 (3) cpj 207j.b. garg, president: 1. the complainant has alleged that tenders were invited for construction of a building at the premises of scf 914, mani majra, chandigarh. the estimated cost was rs. 30.00 lacs and an agreement in this regard was executed on 4.11.1996 by m/s. creative engineering and construction company of panchkula. the work in question was to be completed by 4.4.1997. however, on 14.5.1997, a request was made for extension of time. one of the conditions was that the respondent shall be liable to pay rs. 30,000/- per day as damages in case the work was not completed within the stipulated period. it has been alleged that there was a delay of 221 days and thus a total sum of rs. 6,63,000/- was recoverable. besides this, a further sum of rs. 5.00 lacs has been claimed as compensation. 2. though the respondent was served, yet none appeared on its behalf and therefore, the proceedings against it were ordered ex parteon 9.3.1998. 3. we have perused the complaint and also the terms and conditions. the complaint is not supported by any affidavit. besides this, the details of the work done at various stages have also not been brought on record. the dispute is of such a nature that it requires considerable evidence on facts i.e. from the start of the construction work till the end. though some architect was associated with this construction, yet no affidavit of the architect or any other engineer has been brought on record. in the absence of these facts and the important reason that the dispute is of such a nature that it requires a large number of details, we hold that the complainant does not succeed here and the complaint is dismissed.

Full Judgment

J.B. Garg, President:

1. The complainant has alleged that tenders were invited for construction of a building at the premises of SCF 914, Mani Majra, Chandigarh. The estimated cost was Rs. 30.00 lacs and an agreement in this regard was executed on 4.11.1996 by M/s. Creative Engineering and Construction Company of Panchkula. The work in question was to be completed by 4.4.1997. However, on 14.5.1997, a request was made for extension of time. One of the conditions was that the respondent shall be liable to pay Rs. 30,000/- per day as damages in case the work was not completed within the stipulated period. It has been alleged that there was a delay of 221 days and thus a total sum of Rs. 6,63,000/- was recoverable. Besides this, a further sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs has been claimed as compensation.

2. Though the respondent was served, yet none appeared on its behalf and therefore, the proceedings against it were ordered ex parteon 9.3.1998.

3. We have perused the complaint and also the terms and conditions. The complaint is not supported by any affidavit. Besides this, the details of the work done at various stages have also not been brought on record. The dispute is of such a nature that it requires considerable evidence on facts i.e. from the start of the construction work till the end. Though some architect was associated with this construction, yet no affidavit of the architect or any other engineer has been brought on record. In the absence of these facts and the important reason that the dispute is of such a nature that it requires a large number of details, we hold that the complainant does not succeed here and the complaint is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Cha... Same Parties Eider Pwi Communications Ltd. vs Creative Engineering and Con... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J.B. Garg, President, the Honourable Mr. Sada Nand, Member &A...

Land Acquisition