By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is having a Gober Gas Plant constructed by the 1^st Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party is a non government organization acted as a promoter of the scheme. The construction of the plant was with the amount granted by South Malabar Garmin Bank, Kaniaymbetta branch as loan. The total cost of the gober gas plant estimated was Rs.10,000/- out of which Rs.5,000/- was granted as subsidy under RSVY scheme implementor of the scheme was the 2^nd Opposite Party. The work of digging the pit in the measurement and dimension was carried out by the 1^st Opposite Party.  The 1^st Opposite Party was introduced to Complainant by the 2^nd Opposite Party and averred to the Complainant that the 1^st Opposite Party is an expert in construction of Gober Gas Plant. The Complainant after construction of plant was not received good result. The requirements what all needed for proper emission of gas were completely met by the Complainant. How ever the result was absolutely adverse. The construction of the plant was not as per the specification in the estimate, the plant could give gas at least for ½ hour even if cow dung was properly and sufficiently filed in the tank. The construction of the Gober Gas Plant became a set back to the Complainant. The construction of Gober Gas Plant consists of total draw backs. The Complainant has to give the interest to the loan amount of Rs.1,109 without getting any result for the venture. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally responsible for the construction of a defective plant it is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to.

(a) Reconstruct the Gober Gas Plant in accordance with the estimate and free from

manufacture defect at the expense of the Opposite Party.

(b) Pay Rs.4,200/- towards the loss of the Complainant.

(c ) The Opposite Party may also to be directed to give the Complainant Rs.1,109/- and the

interest remaining for the loan amount from 25.12.2007 till the date of order and also to

be paid along with cost and compensation.

2. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party is as follows. The 1^st Opposite Party has no engagement in the construction of the Gober Gas Plant as alleged by the Complainant. The plant was constructed by the Complainant himself for which one Eby who was introduced by the 1^st Opposite Party as an expert in the construction of the plant. The plan approved for construction of Gober Gas plant is usually constructed by the consumer himself. The production of Gober Gas is related to the quantity of cow dung and the quality of it is also important. Above all if any leakage in the supply of gas if caused even if the production is in large quantity the supply will be considerably less. This draw backs cannot be attributed as a defective manufacture. This Opposite Party has no nexus with the Complainant in the construction of the plant. The plant was completely constructed in 2006 and till the date of filing this complaint. The Complainant had no whispering of any complaint on the functioning of plant. It is known to this Opposite Party that the construction of the plant was done by one Eby who was a worker who worked along with the 1^st Opposite Party. The construction of the gas plant if found to be improper and defective, the 1^st Opposite Party is not responsible for it. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The gist of the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party is as follows:- The 2^nd Opposite Party is a non governmental voluntary organization granted subsidy of Rs.5,000/- to

the construction of Bio Gas Plant. The total cost of the plant is estimated to Rs.10,000/-, Rs.5,000 was offered under the financial assistance of South Malabar Gramin Bank, Kaniyambetta branch and Rs.5,000/- under the RSVY Scheme which was contributed to the Complainant if the plant was constructed by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no link with the construction of the plant. The Complainant is only a beneficiary of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The responsibility of the Complainant is to constructed the plant as the norms issued. The 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party drawn into this dispute. The disbursement of the subsidy amount was only after receiving the report on the function of the plant and it also found to be satisfactory. The gas plant if not constructed according to the required measurement storing and emission of gas would be lessor in quantity. It is the responsibility of the Complainant to implement the scheme free from any defect. The complaint is not having any merit and it is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether the construction of Gober Gas Plant amount to deficiency in service?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of documents Exts.A1 to A7 and Exts.B1 to B6. The report of the Expert Commissioner is Ext.C1. The Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party have also tendered oral testimony in this case.

6. The case of the Complainant is with respect to the manufacturing defect of a Gober Gas Plant. The plant could not supply required quantity of Gober Gas when compared with a plant which is free from any defect. The contention of the Complainant is that the scheme of Gobber Gas Plant is implemented by a Non Governmental Organization that is 2^nd Opposite Party and the work was conducted by the 1^st Opposite Party. The report is not in supply of required quantity of Gobber Gas. The measurement of the plant also reported to be not in tally

with the size required. According to the Complainant, if the plant is well maintained filling it with cow dung the emission of gas at the most continue for ½ hour. In the oral testimony of the 1^st Opposite Party he is only a Supervisor of the certain work run by the 'Rastha'. The 1^st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. On examination he deposed that he is fully ignorant of any work of Bio gas Plant. It is also admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that the construction of Gober Gas Plant of the Complainant was carried out by one person who worked under him. It is also admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that if a plant is well maintained and free from any defect it can emit gas for burning a burner at least for 2 hours. From the circumstances of this it is to be considered that the 1^st Opposite Party is an expert who engaged Supervising work of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party under took the work of promoting the Energy Management Scheme along with other scheme which counts 16 in numbers for which Rs.50,00,000/- was sanctioned to the 2^nd Opposite Party for the management of different scheme. The contention of the 2^nd Opposite party is that they have no direct link with performance of the different schemes. It is also true that the fund was alloted to the Complainant as per the report from authorities concerned. The contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party that the subsidy amount alloted to the Complainant on report is the sole responsibility is nothing but a silly contention not found fit and proper for an effective management of distributing the fund and subsidy. The 2^nd Opposite Party cannot absolve themselves from the responsibility. The report of the Expert Commissioner shows that the plant is defective. We are in the opinion that the Gober Gas plant of the Complainant is defective in construction. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the damages resulted in the effective construction of Gober Gas Plant. Regarding the function of the plant a certificate is issued at the same time report of the monitoring committee is also explained that the plant is satisfactory in function. In the light of the document produced and the evidence tendered in this case. The reports did not explain the actual defect of the plant. The contribution of the complainant for the construction of the plant is under the financial of South Malabar Gramin Bank, Kaniyambetta Branch. In the absence of proper emission of gas from the plant the complainants contribution in physical and monitory aspect become a waste, it is to be compensated by the Opposite Parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the implementing agency of the RSVY Bio Village Project. The scheme is entrusted to 2^nd Opposite Party for the implementation of it with an utmost interest for the community development. The covert act of the 2^nd Opposite Party gives a negative result in some of the schemes, we are considering this case as a typical one which itself speaks the effect of schemes implemented by the agencies. The complainants Gober Gas Plant is to be reconstructed according to the recommended plan. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Parties to reconstruct it making the plant free from any defect. The Complainant is to be compensated for its.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to rectify the defective of the Gober Gas Plant of the Complainant. In the absence of it the Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.4,200/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two hundred only) towards the loss sustained by the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards the compensation along with cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only). The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to comply this order within one month from the date of receiving this.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st March 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Augustine T.M Complainant.

PW2. Joseph. Agriculture.

PW3. Prabhakaran. Driver.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Francis @ Johny Supervisor.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Statement from 21.11.2006 to 25.02.2008.

A2. Copy of the Proceedings of the District Collector, Wayanad. dt:04.11.2005.

A3. Copy of Application Form.

A4. Copy of Plan.

A5. Copy of Abstract Estimate for Biogas Plant.

A6 series (3 numbers). Copy of Receipt.

A7. Copy of Inspection Receipt. dt:27.02.2006.

C1. Commission Report. dt:17.10.2009.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Application Form

B2. Copy of Certificate.

B3. Copy of Bio Gas Plant Payment Details.

B4. Copy of Cash Voucher. dt:27.03.2006

B5 (Marked with objection). Copy of Saving Bank Pass Book.

B6 (Marked with objection). Copy of attendance list of training program.