BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 58 of 2015                                                                           

                                                       Date of Institution         :    25.03.2015.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    10.3.2017

Vijay Singh son of Shri Het Ram, resident of Magge Ki Dhani, village Jaitsar, Suratgarh (Rajasthan).

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

The Goyal Pipes, Plot No.34, HSIDC Hisar Road, Near Delhi Pul, Sirsa, District Sirsa through its Proprietor Tirlok Goyal.

         ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT

          SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………..……MEMBER.        

Present:       Sh. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Manav Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party.

 ORDER

                    Case of complainant in brief, is that he is an agriculturist and owns and possesses agricultural land in village Jaitsar (Rajasthan). The complainant wanted to install tubewell green pipeline in his fields for irrigation purposes and visited the opposite party for this purpose. On 17.12.2012, the opposite party had sold HDPE green pipe to the complainant at the rate of Rs.35/- per Kg vide bill No.257 and had charged a sum of Rs.1,97,750/- qua the price of the aforesaid pipe including tax etc. At the time of sale of the aforesaid pipe, the op had assured the complainant that the said pipe is of extreme good quality and no kind of problem whatsoever shall be occurred therein. He had also given three years guarantee to the complainant verbally in the presence of Jai Pal Godara, Ram Kumar Bishnoi Member Panchayat, Sahi Ram Ex-Sarpanch and at that time Lachhman and Dharmpal transporters were also present. That the complainant for the aforesaid purpose of irrigation got installed the said pipes in his fields and spent Rs.75000/- on the labour etc. alongwith motor. However, after installation of pipes, the same started giving troubles and also started blasting itself. The complainant contacted and informed the op about the same upon which the op had sent his mechanic to inspect the position. The mechanic sent by op inspected the pipes and held the same to be ok and asked the complainant not to worry in this regard. He also assured him that no major problem has occurred. The complainant believing upon the assurance kept on using the pipes for irrigation purposes but with the passage of time, the troubles have increased day by day. The complainant also had got repaired the same through mechanic Balbir Singh of Dashmesh Electric works three-four times and spent Rs.50,000/-. It is further alleged that complainant again contacted the op with regard to the aforesaid problem and requested either to change the pipes or to refund the price of the aforesaid pipes as same were under the period of guarantee. The op kept on giving false assurances and went on avoiding the complainant on one false pretext or the other and thus has passed away long period saying that it is not the matter of worry and assured that in case of major defects in the pipe, he would got the same replaced from the concerned company without any cost. It is further averred that now about two months back, the pipes being of poor quality have been badly damaged and the purpose of purchase of the same could not be properly served till date as the complainant failed to irrigate his fields properly which resulted into a heavy financial loss to the complainant. The complainant immediately contacted the op and hardly requested either to replace the pipes with new one or to refund its price but up openly raised his hands and refused to provide any kind of help to the complainant in this regard rather asked him not to visit him again. The complainant since the day of purchase of pipes has been making rounds to the shop of op and has been making regular and continuous telephonic calls but has not received any positive response. Ultimately on 13.2.2015, he sent legal notice to op asking him either to replace the pipes with new one or to refund the price of pipes alongwith interest from the date of its purchase till final realization but the op sent a vague reply to the said notice. The complainant also came to know recently that the pipe sold to him was not the same pipe which at the time of sale was shown to him. The pieces of pipe shown and supplied to the complainant are in his possession. Hence, this complaint seeking reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and locus standi; suppression of material facts and estoppal etc. On merits, it has been submitted that it seems that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum intentionally and malafidely because the pipe was sold on 17.10.2012 instead of 17.12.2012 and the complaiant has mentioned wrong date in the complaint malafidely. Moreover, on green pipe product there is no guarantee/ warrantee as it is a substituted pipe of PVC and it is used only for agriculture purpose. The product of green pipe is made of road waste (poly bags) and dana, which means the product is of a sub standard and such type of product i.e. green pipe does not bear any type of guarantee or warrantee. The op when issued the bill to the complainant, then it is specifically mentioned at the bottom of its bill that after sale due to any breakage and leakage it will not be returned back. It has been further submitted that if there is any guarantee or warrantee then the same is specifically mentioned on the bill. The complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint that op has given guarantee in the presence of panchayat and it seems that complainant wants to create false evidence. Moreover, now almost three years have already expired and now the complainant with intention to extract money from op has filed the present complaint. The legal notice sent by complainant was properly replied by op. Remaining contents of complaint have also been denied.

3.                It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 3.5.2016 this complaint was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. The complainant preferred appeal against the said order before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 4.11.2016 accepted the appeal and the impugned order was set aside. The complaint was restored to the board of this Forum for adjudication. 

4.                By way of evidence, complainant produced affidavit of Sahi Ram Ex.C1, his affidavit Ex.C2, bill of op Ex.C1/A, bill of Goyal Tubewell store Ex.C1/B, challan Ex.C1/D, weight receipt Ex.C1/E, estimate Ex.C1/F, postal receipt Ex.C1/G, copy of legal notice Ex.C1/G/1, acknowledgment Ex.C1/G/2, mechanic report Ex.C1/H, affidavit of Balbir Singh Ex.C1/I, affidavit of Jaipal Sarpanch Ex.C1/J, affidavit of Lachhman Ex.C1/K, affidavit of Dharmpal Ex.C1/L and affidavit of Ram Kumar Ex.C1/M. On the other hand, opposite party produced his affidavit Ex.R1, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R2, copy of postal receipt Ex.R3 and copy of bill Ex.R4.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

6.                The complainant purchased 5650 Kgs. HDPE green pipe at the rate of Rs.35/- per Kg. i.e. for total amount of Rs.1,97,750/- from opposite party on 17.10.2012 as is evident from bill Ex.C1/A and also from copy of bill produced by opposite party Ex.R4. The complainant has alleged that opposite party had given three years guarantee of the said pipe to the complainant at the time of purchase and has filed the present complaint on 25.3.2015 with the above said averments. Whereas it is the specific stand of the opposite party that on green pipe product there is no guarantee/ warrantee as it is a substituted pipe of PVC which is made of road waste (poly bags) and dana which means that the product is of a sub standard quality. On the bill itself it is also mentioned that after sale of product, same will not be taken back in case of any type of breakage and leakage. The complainant has failed to show that opposite party had given three years guarantee/ warrantee of the said pipe. In absence of any document in this regard, the oral version of the complainant in this regard cannot be believed and the affidavits of the above said persons are also of help to the complainant.  

6.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Resultantly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.                                            

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:10.3.2017.                    Member.               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.