Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/149/2021

Devender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Arcee Industries Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

R.K. Badal

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                                                          Complaint No.: 149 of 2021.

                                                          Date of Institution: 07.07.2021.

                                                          Date of Decision: 26.09.2024.

Devender S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh, Sakna, Jhojhu Kalan, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

Arcee Industries Limited, 7^th KM Barwala Road, Talwandi Rana, Hisar through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

    …...Opposite Party.

 

          COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:       Sh. R.K.Badal, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER:-

 

1.                The case of the complainant in brief, is that he purchased PVC Pipes from the OP vide bill No.174 dated 28.09.2020 for a sum of Rs.1,52,286/-.  It is alleged that the OP has assured the complainant in respect of high standard quality of the said pipes.  It is further alleged that when complainant earthened the above mentioned pipes in ground of his fields, the same burst and melted. He immediately visited the office of OP and made complaint regarding defectiveness of the pipes and on this the OP said that he would give new pipes but it would take some time and thereafter flatly refused to replace the pipes. It is further alleged that due to manufacturing defects in the pipes sold by OP, the complainant is unable to irrigate his field and the purpose for which he had purchased the pipes became futile.  It is further alleged that the complainant had requested many times to the OP to replace pipes, but to no effect.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed written statement stating that the OP had sold the pipes to the complainant in good condition. At the time of purchase, complainant was told that while burying the pipe in ground, Solvent cement was to be used in the joints of the pipe so that there would not any leakage of water. But when the complainant buried the pipes in the field, he did not use Solvent cement in the joints, due to which water leaked from the pipes. After that the sale executive and production foreman on behalf of the company went to the site in the complainant field and inspected the pipes put under ground, in which it was found that there was leakage at 2-3 spots and the complainant had not used Solvent Cement while burring the pipes between the joints due to which the pipes got damaged because of leakage of water and the complainant did not take any step to get the pipes repaired by applying solvent cement. It is further alleged that the complainant has falsely concocted story that any assurance was given to him or he came to their office regarding complaint or defects in the pipes.  It is further alleged that the OP always tried to help complainant in all best possible ways, but the complainant tried to grab illegal gains by replacing the pipes free of cost. The complainant has concealed real facts from this Commission.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 (Photograph A to G) in evidence and closed the evidence on 17.11.2022 and reiterated contents thereof during the arguments

4.                Sh. Satyadev Sharma on behalf of OP has tendered written statement and affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 28.02.2023. The OP reiterated contents of the written statement.   

5.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                There is not any dispute on the question of facts and that the complainant had purchased pipes from the OP.  From the perusal of copy of bill Ex.C1, it is clear that the complainant had purchased PVC pipes from OP for a total sum of Rs. 1,52,286/- (i.e. cost of 1.36 TON PVC pipe for Rs.1,29,056/- and GST for Rs.23,230.08/- vide Invoice  No.174 dated 28.09.2020.  The said pipes were laid down in the fields by the complainant for irrigating his agricultural land.  The complainant has taken the plea that the pipes had burst and melted and there was leakage of water due to inferior quality of the pipes and he immediately informed the OP about the same.

7.                The complainant had buried the pipes in the field and allegedly water leaked from many places due to inferior quality of pipes for which photographs were placed on record by the complainant (Ex.C-3A to Ex.C-3G). He averred that due non-irrigating his fields, the complainant has been deprived of the income of land and has to bear the losses. But complainant has not submitted any report from any technician /expert to know the exact reason of leakage of pipes and in regard to inferior quality of the pipes. On the other hand OP has averred that the complainant did not put the pipes to underground properly and no solvent was applied in fitting the pipes to secure any leakage. But the OP has not produced any evidence in favour of its averment, and no document of advisory/instructions in regarding to fitting/undergrounding the pipes was placed on record. Hence, OP cannot be absolved from its obligations in absolute terms.

                   Nevertheless, the complainant has suffered huge financial losses in the process. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP is directed:-

i)       To pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) as compensation on account loss suffered by the complainant  due to leakage of the  pipes and on account of mental agony and harassed caused to him.

ii)     To pay Rs. 5000/- (Five Thousand only) as litigation charges.

8.                 The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which further interest @9% p.a. will be paid by the OP for the delayed period.

          Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.