Write to email@example.com
Share this page
This is a dispute between an importer of tiles (the Claimant) based in West Bengal and a dealer (the Respondent) based in Gujarat. While an order for a consignment of imported tiles was placed by the respondent, an advance of 50% was demanded and paid for. The remaining was to be paid on delivery post inspection of quality specifications. While the tiles were delivered within the stipulated period, there was a delay in the processing of the payment and even approving the quality of the product.
The respondent's clients had appointed a 3rd party consultant for approving the quality of the products, and the same was delayed as they were travelling from a different city. On arrival, they disagreed with the sizes of a large chunk of the products citing issues with the size, which rendered Rs. 4,50,010/- worth of products untenable for supply. While the remaining amount was paid, this amount remained disputed, and the products could not be returned as they were custom ordered. The discussions between both parties were futile, and the same was handed over to PrivateCourt for settlement.
Once the mediator had gone through all the correspondence in this matter, what became clear was that the product supplied by the claimant was exactly according to the specs in the purchase order. However, there was a clerical error, and the sizes were not in sync with the original order placed by the respondent. The mediator clearly explained how the onus of the same was squarely the respondent's, and all that could be done was that there be some time be extended to make the entire payment. A consensus was reached, and an agreement was entered into.
The respondent agreed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 4,43,990/- in 2 parts, viz. Rs. 1,50,000/- on 31/07/2022 and Rs. 2,43,990/- on 31/08/2022.
Taking a deep dive to get to the root cause can often clear ambiguities.