Haryana

StateCommission

A/402/2016

NATIONAL IRREGATION EUIPMENT CO. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI KISHAN(SINCE DECEASED) - Opp.Party(s)

ABHISHEK YADAV

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                                         First Appeal No  :      402 of 2016

Date of Institution:      10.05.2016

Date of Decision :       17.01.2017

 

 

National Irrigation Equipment Company (through its Manager) Harish Chander son of Lekh Raj, Proprietor of National Irrigation Equipment Company, 2 KM Stone, Delhi Road, Rewari, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

 

Versus

 

1.      Jai Kishan son of Tirkha Ram through his LRs:-

          a.      Yashpal – son

          b.      Sukhbir – son

          c.       Savita – daughter

          d.      Anguri – widow

 

          All Biswedar of Village Bathera Pana Ghatoli, Tehsil and District Jhajjar and resident of Village Tirkhi, District Gurgaon.

                   Respondents-Complainants

 

2.      Parkash Chand son of Shri Chand, resident of Near Hanuman Mandir, Uttam Nagar, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

3.      The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar.

Respondent-Opposite Parties No.2 & 3

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                      

Argued by:          Shri Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the respondents-complainants

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

National Irrigation Equipment Company-opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) has filed the present appeal against the order dated March 10^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby the complaint filed by legal representatives of Jai Kishan, was allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

“5.     In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 who failed to supply the good and superior quality pipes to the complainant.  Therefore, we direct the respondent No.1 to supply the fresh new pipe lines of good material and of standard quality to the extent of same quantity of bill Exhibit P-1 to the complainant without charging any cost from the complainant and install the same in the fields of complainant.  The respondent No.1 is, however, at liberty to take back the old pipes from the fields of complainant by bearing the expenses of digging/labour charges etc of its own.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1.  The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

 

2.      Jai Kishan (since deceased) purchased underground pipes to install in his fields from the appellant through Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar-opposite party No.3 on subsidy. There was leakage in the pipes and appellant changed the few pipes but it again started leaking.  Hence, the complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The appellant, in its written version, pleaded that the pipes did not have any manufacturing defect.  On December 09^th, 2009, the complainant purchased the pipes with the guarantee/warranty of one year from the date of its purchase and not from the date of installation.

4.      The opposite party No.2 pleaded in his written version that he was the agent of appellant and only the appellant was responsible for any defects in the pipes. 

5.      The opposite party No.3 pleaded that it had only granted subsidy on the bills supplied by the appellant. 

6.      To adjudicate the matter in a more efficacious manner, The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar was directed to visit the spot and examine as to whether there was leakage in the pipes or not?  He was directed to submit his report. 

7.      The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Jhajjar submitted his report dated January 16^th, 2017 (Annexure A-2), which reads as under:-

“Report of Spot Inspection

          In compliance of your order dated 05.12.16, I do hereby submit the following spot inspection report:-

1. I visited the spot in Village Bathera-Kahri, Tehsil and District Jhajjar on 16.01.17 at 2:30 PM after giving verbal notice to counsels of both the parties whose address were in our office file.  Few farmers were found present at the spot and I recorded their combined statements, which may be read with this report.
2. I go dig out the pipeline which were stamped with National Company with it’s full configuration and the water was leading from those pipes.  Few more farmers can present there and confirmed the same in support.
3. The pipelines are leaking at the spot and there is no possible to irrigate the fields from this pipelines.  Report is present for your perusal.”

 

8.      Having perused the aforesaid report, it is unhesitatingly held that there is a leakage in the pipes and it is not possible to irrigate the fields from these pipes.  Thus, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.  

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.2750/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 17.01.2017

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK