Order Name: M/S. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. vs North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST)
Case No.: FA/546/2013
In a recent turn of events, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has made modifications to a decision initially made by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh. This case revolves around a dispute between the North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) and M/s Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. (Intec), which had delayed a developmental project due to alleged service deficiencies.
The core issue that led to the dispute was a contract signed between NERIST and Intec. This contract entailed the installation and commissioning of electrical equipment and fiber optic lines for the institute. Initially set to be completed by May 21, 2007, delays pushed the completion date to July 21, 2008. This resulted in a series of disagreements over project completion, supply delays, and unpaid bills, leading NERIST to take the matter to the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh.
The State Commission ruled in favor of NERIST, ordering Intec to pay a hefty compensation of Rs. 10,22,500 to NERIST. Furthermore, Intec was restricted from receiving any further payment for the project. Finding this decision unfavorable, Intec appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Intec disputed the State Commission’s order, arguing that the complaint was filed beyond the permissible two-year limitation period. Moreover, Intec denied any deficiencies in its services and contested the additional expenditure of Rs. 16,21,722 cited by NERIST, stating it was related to costs incurred long after the project was completed and therefore not covered under warranty.
NERIST, on the other hand, argued that the issues were ongoing, with unresolved defaults and deficiencies leading to the 2010 complaint. They blamed Intec for the project’s delays and deficiencies, leading to extra expenses to make the system operational. They claimed that Intec’s negligence led to the R&D center’s incomplete status, amounting to unfair trade practices.
The NCDRC, after reviewing the arguments, noted that the complete delay could not be attributed solely to Intec. They observed that NERIST’s site and room were not available beyond the contract period. They also noted that the State Commission made an error in calculating the project’s delay, considering the initial deadline without accounting for the 2-month extension. As such, the actual delay was 81 days, not 141.
Regarding the issue of the departing engineer with the essential password, the NCDRC noted that the engineer was a NERIST employee. Also, the third component of the project was not installed, and there was no payment made to Intec for it. Consequently, NERIST’s claim of an additional expenditure of Rs. 16,21,722 due to Intec’s service deficiency was rejected.
While acknowledging a slight deficiency on Intec’s part, the NCDRC found the claimed additional expenditure of around Rs. 16 lakhs to be unfair. The compensation was recalculated to Rs. 2,02,500, with an additional Rs. 20,000 awarded for Intec’s failure to install the third component. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 was imposed on Intec due to the departure of the engineer with the password. The injunction preventing Intec from receiving the remaining billed amount was lifted, and Intec was ordered to pay NERIST Rs. 20,000 for litigation costs.
In conclusion, the appeal was granted, and the original order from the State Commission was modified. This case highlights the importance of clear contractual agreements and the need for both parties to adhere to their responsibilities. It underscores the potential for disputes when there are delays and disagreements in service delivery, emphasizing the importance of effective project management.
