Bikkar Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- i.e Rs.35,543/- as price of the poor quality tubewell material supplies by the opposite parties vide bill No.147 dated 29/4/2004, Rs.34,457/- other expenses incurred by the complainant in its installation in his agricultural land at village Bhana Tehsil and District Faridkot and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that the complainant is the resident of village Bhana. He is having agricultural land at village Bhana and does the agricultural work in it. On 27/4/2004 the complainant purchased tubewell bore material worth Rs.35,543/- vide bill No. 147 dated 29/4/2004 from the opposite party. The complainant got the tubewell installed from Thana Singh son of Pritam Singh resident of village Kot Karor Khurd, Tehsil Talwandi Bhai, District Ferozepur from 27/4/2004 to 3/5/2004. In the installation of the tubewell the complainant incurred a sum of Rs.34,457/- i.e Rs.6000/- as labour, Rs.4200/- price of 200 Diesel, Rs.2,000/- poriuce of crasher, Rs.2,000/- earth digging labour charges of 5 laborers for 5 days, Rs.2000/- price of bricks, Rs.900/- price of 6 bags cement, Rs.1600/- as tractor hiring charges, Rs.8500/- as miscellaneous expenses. But the said tubewell bore did not function properly and smoothly as its pipe and other material so supplied by the opposite party being of poor quality and of low standard, defective tubewell bore pipe squeezed. As a result the complainant had also to suffer loss of Rs.18,000/- for loss of 24 Quintals paddy of 2 acres land and Rs.32,000/- for loss of 11 Quintals of cotton of 4 acres his land as they did not grow in good quantity. The complainant got his tubewell checked from the said Mistri who after spot inspection and observation gave his report by way of affidavit dated 8/8/2006 that from starting it worked for some time but a month ago plastic pipes squeezed and the tubewell guttered and became unfunctionable and this all happened due to defective pipes supplied by the shopkeeper. So there is clear cut deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in supplying the tubewell bore material of poor and low standard to the complainant. The complainant showed his tubewell bore to the opposite parties and requested them many times to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,10,000/- due to supply of poor quality material of tubewell bore and thereby causing unnecessary mental tension, agony, pain, wastage of time, money, energy but all in vain. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 30-8-2006 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. On receipt of notice the opposite party appeared through Sh. T.S.Sekhon Advocate and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint as framed is not maintainable. The complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite party so liable to be dismissed with costs. The present complaint is time barred. On merits the opposite party submitted that Thana Singh who has allegedly installed the tubewell is not a trained person for this job. The amounts shown as spent on the items are highly exaggerated and it is not possible to spent such an amount on the installation of a tubewell. The opposite party supplied the pipes and other material which was of very good quality and up to the mark and there was no question of squeezing. The real matter is that the person Thana Singh who has been claimed to install the tubewell is not a trained person for this work and it may be due to the defect in installing the tubewell, that the pipes would have been squeezed. The material supplied to the complainant was not covered under any kind of warranty or guarantee etc. The loss of Rs.18,000/- for loss of 24 Qtls. paddy of 2 acres land Rs.32,000/- for loss of 11 Qtls. of cotton of 4 acres of land is nothing but just an imagination and calculated on conjunctures and surmises. The affidavit of Thana Singh is false and just has been procured with a motive to extract money from the opposite party. Thana Singh who has also been shown to have installed the tubewell himself has now been planted to give a report as an expert for the work which he is alleged to have done himself. As per affidavit the tubewell became unfunctionable a month ago before swearing in the affidavit on 8 August 2006 which means that the tubewell was properly working before that period which proves that there was no defect in the material supplied by the opposite party and it also makes the present complaint barred by limitation and the opposite party cannot be held responsible for any alleged loss. The opposite party supplied material of good quality which fact is proved from the affidavit of Thana Singh that the tubewell functioned properly for two years of its installation and became unfunctionable only in the month of July 2006 as alleged. So there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had never approached the opposite party regarding any complaint in the functioning of tubewell or regarding supply of material and the complaint is just an outcome of the greed of the complainant to extract money from the opposite party. So the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavits Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2. copy of bill dated 27/4/2004 Ex.C-3, affidavits of Thana Singh Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5, bill against the tubewell bore Ex.C-6, covering letter of S. Gursevak Singh Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Tubewells), Faridkot Ex.C-7, report Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Gurmit Singh Dhingra partner of Lal Chand and Sons Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have supplied defective and misbranded PVC pipes to be used by the complainant for the purpose of installation of tubewell. Since the pipes were of very law quality and defective so on squeezing of the pipes the bore stopped functioning after about 2 years of installation. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the complainant has not purchased ISI Mark PVC pipes. There is no guarantee or warranty of the PVC pipes purchased by the complainant. The bore has been sunk by the unauthorized person. The PVC pipes were in working condition. There is defect in the PVC pipes so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the bill Ex.C-3 it is made out that the complainant Bikkar Singh purchased PVC pipes and other connected material to sink a bore on 29/4/2004 worth Rs.35,543/-. As per receipt Ex.C-6 of Thana Singh he has sunk the bore on 3/5/2004 in the land of complainant Bikkar Singh situated in village Bhana and received amount of Rs.6000/-. length of pipes was 515 Ft. <br /> 11. As per pleadings of the complainant as well as his affidavit Ex.C-2 the pipes were purchased by the complainant on 27/4/2004 vide bill No. 147 dated 29/4/2004. The tubewell was got installed by the complainant from Thana Singh son of Pritam Singh. He incurred expenses of Rs.34,457/- for installation of the tubewell. The tubewell did not function properly and smoothly as its pipes and other material so supplied by the opposite party was of poor quality, low standard and defective tubewell bore pipes squeezed and he suffered a loss of Rs.18,000/- and Rs.32,000/- in 4 acres of land due to non production of the crops. As per affidavit dated 8/8/2006 of Thana Singh and the complainant the tubewell started working for sometime but a month prior to filing of this complaint the plastic pipes squeezed and tubewell guttered and became unfunctional. <br /> 12. The Local Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 3/1/2007 Assistant Agriculture Engineer (Tubewells), Faridkot S. Gursevak Singh. Gursevak Singh submitted his report Ex.C-8. As per his report he called both the parties in his office on 24/1/2007. The tubewell was visited on the same day. It was having depth of 515 Ft. The bore was having 140 Ft. 7 Inch PVC plain pipe. It was also having 275 Ft. PVC plain pipe of 4-1/2 inch, PVC filter having length of 100 Ft. and it is diameter of 4-1/2 inch was found fitted. When with the help of measuring tape the bore was measured then he found that the pipes after a length of 158 Ft. stood blocked as the measuring tape could not cross beyond this length. The cause of closing of the bore beyond this point can be due to squeezing of PVC pipes as the same were not of ISI Mark. One pipe was checked at the spot near to the 158 Ft. where there is a joint of 7 inch and 4-1/2 inch diameter pipes the socket might have broken or squeezed. Due to the squeezing the bore have tilted down to the extent of 4 ft. due to block of the pipes the bore has stopped working for the purpose of taking out the ground water for irrigation. <br /> 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party from the cross-examination of the expert Gursevak Singh could not get illicited even a single word favoring opposite party. <br /> 14. In such like circumstances the opposite party cannot take plea that they were not asked by the complainant for purchase of ISI Marked pipes. Even if the pipes are not of ISI Mark still it cannot be said that the complainant has purchased the pipes for working of the tubewell for a limited period of two years or so. The bore of tubewell should meant for life long irrigation of the land through the tubewell at least till ground water is available. <br /> 15. The bill Ex.C-3 shows that the opposite party is dealer of Parkash PVC pipes, Akashdeep PVC pipes and other boring material. There is no mention if they were having stock of ISI marked pipes. The opposite party are held to have supplied low quality defective pipes to the complainant since the tubewell in the beginning was working properly so no fault can be found with the person who have such the bore. <br /> 16. In such like circumstance if Thana Singh is not a qualified person then it cannot be said that he had no knowledge about sinking of the bore. As per his affidavit Thana Singh is working in the area to sink the bores. So no fault can be found by the opposite party with the working of Thana Singh. Even the technical expert Gursevak Singh has not found if there was any bad workmanship in sinking the bore. <br /> 17. So simple denial by the opposite party from the above noted facts is not helpful to the opposite party. The complainant also is within the period of limitation from the time a few months ago when tubewell pipes squeezed and it did not function properly. So time of limitation does not start from the time of purchase of pipes by the complainant from the opposite party, rather cause of action arose to the complainant when the pipes were found to be of low quality and defective material as mentioned above. <br /> 18. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances there is deficiency of services to be provided by the opposite party to the complainant. So the complaint of the complainant is accepted with costs of Rs.500/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to pay in all a sum of Rs.40,000/- which include costs of the pipes and other damages and compensation thereof within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the opposite party shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs.40,500/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till the realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 9/8/2007<br /> <br /> <br />