Haryana

StateCommission

A/984/2015

ATUL PIPE CORPORATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAI NARAIN - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.984 of 2015

Date of Institution: 17.11.2015

                                                          Date of Decision: 18.07.2016

 

The Proprietor, Atul Pipe Corporation, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

 

1.      Jai Narain S/o Shri Piare Lal, R/o Village and PO Lukhi,Tehsil  Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra.

2.      The Director, supply and Disposal, Haryana Sector 22, Chandigarh.

3.      The Director, Agricultural Haryana, Sector 21, Panchkula.

4.      The Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, near Ashok Cinema, Karnal, Distt. Karnal.

5.      The Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Panchkula, Kothi No.1288/13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

         …..Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Atul appellant in person.

Mr. Amit Kamboj, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

None for the respondent No.2.

Dr. Surender Kumar, ASCO, Kurukshetra of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

It was alleged by complainant that he issued bank draft of Rs.44880/- in favour of Opposite party (O.P.) No.1-(appellant) for purchase of 120 RCC pipes with 240 MTS 12” Diameter with rubber rings through O.P.No.5 because it was granted contract by O.P.Nos.4 and 5 to supply the pipes under the scheme of 25% subsidy.  O.P.No.1 supplied 108 pipes out of which 4 pipes were broken and others were of sub standard.  Loading and unloading charges were to be borne by O.P.No.1. Such like pipes were available at the rate of Rs.100/- per meter, whereas O.P.No.1 charged Rs.187/- per meter.  He requested O.P.No.1 to meet the shortcomings, but, to no avail.  Thereafter, legal notice was also sent when conference was held at Karnal on 05.07.2002 with O.P.Nos.1, 4 and 5, it was decided that broken pipes and sub standard quality pipes would be replaced.  He suffered loss to the tune of Rs.240662/- comprising sub-standard pipes, loss of crop etc.  District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short ‘District Forum’) was having jurisdiction to try the matter because the pipes were supplied at village Lukhi. District Kurukshetra.

2.      O.P.No.1 filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that pipes were supplied to complainant at Charkhi Dadri District Bhiwani and no cause of action accrued at Village Lukhi, District Kurukshetra, so that district forum was not having jurisdiction to try the complaint. To check the quality of the pipes procedure provided under section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (in short “Act”) was not followed.  It was not in picture in any manner.  Though draft was of Rs.44880/-, but, due to inadvertence receipt of Rs.44800/- was issued. There was oral contract for sale of only 108 RCC pipes and after rendition of accounts Rs.4404/- were refunded to complainant.  There was no contract about supply of rubber ring.  Averments of complainant about rate were also not correct.  Rs.20880/- were not charged in excess from him. Due reply of notice was given.  The pipes were not of sub standard.  Other averments were also denied and alleged that complaint be dismissed.

3.      It was alleged by O.P.No.2 that contract was executed with O.P.No.1 to supply pipes because it’s tender was at lowest rate.  Before supply, product was to be duly inspected by authorized officer.  It was not responsible for any lapse on the part of the O.P.No.1

4.      It was alleged by O.P.Nos.3, 4 and 5 in their joint reply that O.P.No.1 supplied only 108 pipes of two meters length out of which four pipes were broken at the site.  Original bills and balance material were not supplied to them by O.P.No.1. They were giving free technical guidance to the farmers and after completion of the work @ 25% subsidy was released to the farmers account. Due to incomplete work subsidy  @ 25% was not given to complainant.  In meeting held at Karnal on 05.07.2002 O.P.No.1 was asked to supply the remaining pipes immediately.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, jurisdiction, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint qua them.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  03.11.2015 and directed  the O.P.No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.14400/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 19.07.2002 till realization.

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1-appellnt has preferred this appeal on the grounds that District Forum, Kurukshetra was not having jurisdiction because the pipes were supplied at Dadri.  The pipes were not short and averments to this effect were altogether wrong. Learned District Forum directed payment without any reason, so impugned order be set aside.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.      It was urged by the proprietor of O.P.No.1 that District forum Kurukshetra was not having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter because the pipes were not supplied at Kurukshetra and were lifted from Dadri Distt. Bhiwani. There was no shortage of pipes as alleged by complainant.  Due reply of his notice was given.  Learned District Forum wrongly directed to make payment, so impugned order dated 03.11.2015 be set aside.

9.      This argument is devoid of any force. Vide letter dated 31.03.2002 sent by Assistant Land Protection Officer, Kurukshetra, O.P.No.1 was directed to supply the pipes to the farmers at the spots. This letter clearly shows that delivery was to be given at the particular place and not at Dadri.  This letter corroborates version of the complainant that pipes were supplied at village Lukhi.  O.P.No.1 has not produced any document showing that delivery was given at Dadri.  In the absence of any such document averments of O.P.No.1  cannot be deemed to be true. 

10.    Version of complainant about shortage of pipes is also corroborated from the pleadings of other O.Ps.  It is admitted by O.P.Nos.3 to 5 that meeting was held at Karnal at 05.07.2002 and O.P.No.1 was directed to supply the remaining pipes.  Had there been no shortage there would not have been any meeting.  In Letter dated 3.06.2002 O.P.No.1 was asked to  supply the remaining pipes not only to complainant but other persons also.  It shows that all pipes were not supplied and there was shortage.  In letter dated 01.08.2008, sent by Assistant Land Protection Officer, it is clearly mentioned that only 108 pipes were supplied and out of them four were broken. On the other hand there is only bald statement of O.P.No.1 which cannot be believed.  So these arguments are of no avail.  Learned District Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly   appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.17,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

July 18th, 2016

Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.