Haryana

StateCommission

A/415/2016

RISHI PAL PHOGAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAMPAL - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT ARORA

20 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.415 of  2016

Date of the Institution: 12.05.2016.

Date of Decision: 20.07.2016

 

Rishpal Phogat, Manager Swati Storwel Limited, near Railway Crossing, Kharkadi Mor, Bhiwani.

          .….Appellant /Respondent No.1.

Versus

 

Dharampal aged about 60 years s/o Shri Juglal resident of village Deverala, Tehsil Tosham District Bhiwani.

                                                                   .….Respondent/Complainant

 

Chief Manager, Swati Storwel Private  Limited 44-45, Industrial Area, Sector-1, Parwanoo (Himachal Pardesh).

                                                                   …..Proforma respondent.

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

                    Son of Respondent No.1 in person.

                   None for the respondent No.2.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

                   It was alleged by the complainant that to carry water from one field to another field he purchased 1239 pipes of 90 MM from opposite party (O.P.)  No.1 in the month of March, 2010 as mentioned in bill No.1155 dated 27.03.2010 for a consideration of Rs.79380/-. O.P.no.1 sent the labour to lay the pipes under-ground and charged separately for the same. First and last pipes were of 90 MM and in between he laid pipes of 75 MM. This fact came to notice when he submitted case for subsidy. The quality of the pipes was also very low. As the fields could not be watered properly, so also, he suffered loss. There was deficiency in service and O.Ps. be directed to pay the price of pipes besides compensation for loss of crop etc. as mentioned in complaint.

2.                Only O.P. No.1 filed reply because OP No.2 was proceeded against exparte by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short “District Forum”) admitting purchase of pipes but alleged that they were not laid by him. Complainant admitted the size and type etc. of the pipes to be correct and in token thereof put his signatures on the invoice. Pipes were not got checked by him and averment to this effect was not correct. If there was any defect in pipes laid under earth he was not responsible for the same.  Had there been any defect in pipes, complainant must have sent notice to him. Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.                After hearing both the parties the learned District Forum, Bhiwani allowed complaint vide order dated 09.02.2016 and directed O.Ps to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs.2500/- on account of litigation cost.”

4.                Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the O.P.No.1-appellant has preferred this appeal. 

5.                Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.                Counsel for appellant/O.P.No.1 vehemently argued that after purchase of pipes invoice Ex.C1 was issued wherein it was admitted by complainant that items mentioned therein were supplied to him. As per this invoice pipes were of 90 MM size. He i.e. O.P.No.1 did not lay pipes under-ground at the spot. So it cannot be opined that he was liable for compensation in any manner.

7.                This argument is of no avail. From the perusal of Ex.C1, it is clear that it is having thumb mark of the complainant and not signatures. It is nowhere mentioned therein that the same was read-over and explained to complainant. This invoice is in English and it is not expected from an illiterate person to go through the contents of the same.  So, it cannot be presumed that complainant was made aware about the items mentioned therein.

8.                More-so, version of the complainant about laying pipes by O.P.No.1 cannot be doubted because complainant was not going to be benefitted by laying pipes off 75 MM. Had he laid pipes then he must have used pipes of 90 MM and not 75 MM when he had already paid for the same and was to get subsidy.  He cannot do any act due to which his right of subsidy is shadowed. So, his version about laying pipes by O.P.No.1 cannot be doubted. As per report of Agricultural Development Officer, Ex.C-21, only first and last pipes were of 90 MM and other pipes were of 75 MM. This report proves the case of the complainant. Keeping in view all these facts, learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned, based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

9.             The statutory amount of Rs.19500/-deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

July,20th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl. Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench