BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 271 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 01.05.2013.
Date of Decision: 14-8-2015
Satish son of Shri Udey Singh son of Shri Baru Ram, resident of village Jamni, tehsil Safidon, district Jind.
Versus
Goyal Traders, Lala Lajpat Rai Chowk, Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani, through its prop./authorized person.
……….Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member,
Present:- Shri I.S.Parmar, Advocate, for complainant.
Shri Rajesh Nagar, Advocate for Op.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that had purchased PVC pipes amounting to Rs.1,84,990/- vide bill No.12004 dated 7.6.2008 from the OP and also spent Rs.15,000/- on account of lay down the above said pipes in his agriculture land. The complainant alleged that the OP had assured that in case of leakage problem occurred in the pipes the same will be replaced within the warranty period of 10 years. The complainant further alleged that in the month of Feb.2012 leakage started in the pipes and intimation in this regard was given to OP upon which he assured to get repaired the same and the payment of repair charges will be borne by him. The complainant further alleged that he spent Rs.50,000/- on account of repair work of the pipes and submitted the bills to the OP for making payment but he did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of OP he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. OP on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that there was no warranty/guarantee of 10 years on the pipes purchased by the complainant as the pipes were local made and not branded. It is submitted that writing regarding the warranty/guarantee written in the bill is fake and OP did not written the same on the copy of bill. Moreover, there is nothing on record to regarding cracking and leaking of pipes, as alleged by him. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 bill dated 7.6.2008, Annexure C2 death certificate, Annexure C3 affidavit of complainant, Annexure C4 & C5 Photographs, Annexure C6 Photostat copy of legal notice, Annexure C7 postal receipt Annexure C8 AD, Annexure C9 Photostat copy of Identity Card, Annexure C10 Photostat copy ration card.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite party has placed on record affidavit of Surjeet Kujmar.
6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully and written arguments filed by counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased PVC pipes from the OP on 7.6.2008 and the said pipes leaked in Feb. 2012 and the complainant spent Rs.50,000/- for the repair of the said pipes and submitted bill of repairs to the OP for payment and OP did not make payment of the said amount to the complainant. He further submitted that the said pipes leaked again. The bill of the PVC pipes Annexure C1.
8. Counsel for Opposite Party reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the allegations of the complainant are false and baseless. He further submitted that bill Annexure C1 was issued in the name of Udey Singh son of Baru Ram while the present complaint has been filed by Satish Kumar son of Udey Singh while according to death certificate produced by the complainant Udey Singh alias Uda had already died in the year, 1991 then while the complainant got issued the bill in the name of a dead person. He further submitted that no alleged guarantee of 10 years was given by the OP to the complainant.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties we have examined the relevant material on record. After four years of the purchase of PVC pipes the complainant has alleged the leakage in the pipes. Under the Provisions of Section 13(i)( c) of the C.P.Act, 1986 where the consumer alleges defects in goods, then the complainant should obtain the analysis of such goods from the appropriate laboratory regarding quality of goods. In instant case the complainant has not followed procedure as envisaged under the Provision of Section 13(i)(c) of the C.P.Act, 1986 to prove that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP are of poor quality. The complainant has not produced copy of the repair bill of Rs.50,000/- as stated by him that he had got repaired the leaked pipes. The complainant has failed to bring on record any cogent and convincing evidence in support of his version. In the absence of cogent and corroborative evidence the complaint of the complainant cannot be allowed. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: .14.8.2015. (Rajesh Jinda)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member
