Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 188.
Instituted on : 12.07.2013.
Decided on : 02.06.2016.
Maha Singh s/o Sh. Sarup Singh R/o Village–Bahu Akbarpur, Tehsil & Distt. Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- C.S.Vision Enterprises 109 Khaperwas Tosham Distt. Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- District Horticulture Office, Rohtak now Anaj Mandi, Gate No.3, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.K.Nandal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Somveer Singh, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that Haryana Govt. has launched a scheme for installation of Poly House and Net House on subsidy basis. The complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 for installation of poly house and net house and the opposite party no.2 gave the address of empanelled firm i.e. opposite party no.1 and told that the house will be installed through opposite party no.2 by opposite party no.1. It is averred that an agreement was executed on dated 06.08.2012 between the complainant and opposite parties. Complainant deposited his share and completed all the formalities for installation of structure. It is averred that as per terms and conditions the opposite party no.1 was bound to complete the installation work within a maximum period of 45 days of the handing over the clear site and the work was to be completed upto 16th November 2012. But the opposite party no.1 has failed to complete the installation work within time and due to this the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.50000/- because he could not sown the crops or vegetables in time in his fields. It is averred that opposite party has completed the work on 20th January 2013 and the complainant had sown the Hilton Kheera seeds on 25th January 2013 and on 5-6 February a heavy rain come and remain about 10days and Kheera Crop was destroyed due to the leakage of rainy water from the roof of the newly constructed poly house. It is averred that complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties but no repair was done by the company and the complainant has suffered loss of more than 3 lacs which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is averred that the site was inspected by APO and it was found that there were many defects in the alleged poly house. It is averred that some repair work was done in the month of April 2013 by the opposite party no.1 but on 06.06.13 due to heavy wind an alternation pipe of the poly house was broken and due to which the complainant is suffering a huge financial loss and mental tension. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the poly house and to compensate the complainant but to no effect. As such it is averred that opposite parties may kindly be directed to make the payment of Rs.5100000/- as compensation for the damages caused by the opposite party no.1 alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared but opposite party no.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.07.2014 of this Forum. However opposite party no.1 filed its written reply submitting therein that the complainant paid only Rs.631512/- on dated 06.08.2012 for installation of poly house and drip irrigation system and a receipt was given to the complainant by the answering opposite party. It is averred that the opposite party has completed the installation work of poly house within stipulated time and issued a letter dated 14.12.2012 for completion of installation of work. It is averred that the loss of crops of complainant was not due to leakage or any other shortcoming in structure of poly house but it was due to problem of high water level in that area and low level of filed of complainant. The complainant filed some complaints and the District Horticulture Officer, Rothak submitted his report dated 19.03.2013 regarding such complaints and loss in which it was clearly mentioned that the loss was due to high water level. It is averred that alteration pipe of poly house was broken due to heavy storm which was natural calamity but the answering opposite party repaired the broken pipe immediately. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence.
6. We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case it is not disputed that as per the agreement between the parties Ex.C1 the complainant had empanelled the opposite party no.1 for installation of Poly House and to provide after sale services. It is also not disputed that as per the complaint made by the complainant made to opposite party no.2 which is placed on record as Ex.C4, there were some problems like leakage of water, cutting of shed etc. and the same are also mentioned in the inspection report Ex.C5. The contention of ld. counsel for the complainant is that due to the alleged defects in the structure of the poly house, he suffered a great financial loss but the same could not be removed by the opposite parties despite his repeated requests. It is further contended that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
8. On the other hand contention of ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 is that the complainant filed some complaints and the District Horticulture Officer, Rothak submitted his report dated 19.03.2013 and found that the loss was due to high water level and the alteration pipe of poly house was broken due to heavy storm which was natural calamity but the answering opposite party repaired the broken pipe immediately. It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
9. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the inspection report Ex.C5 there were some defects in the poly house i.e. nut bolts and leakage etc. and the shortcomings were removed by the opposite party no.1 as per its letter Ex.R4 but the complainant still have some grievances regarding the alleged poly house. In this regard it is observed that opposite party no. 1 vide its statement dated 29.04.2016 has stated that if there is any inherent defect in the poly house, opposite party is ready to remove the same at their own cost.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as per the statement made by opposite party no.1 before this Forum, opposite party no.1 is ready to remove the defect. As such it is directed that opposite party no.1 shall remove the inherent defects of the poly house in question at their own expenses after taking satisfaction letter from the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.3500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
11. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
02.06.2016.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
…………………………..
Ved Pal, Member.
