BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                         

                                                    Complaint No.: 609 of 2007

                                                    Date of Institution:  22.11.2007

                                                    Date of Order: 06.05.2016

Sada Ram son of Shri Girdhari Lal, resident of Pana Dhikyaan, Village Dubaldhan, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar.

                                                                           ….Complainant.

                              Versus

Manish Goyal Proprietor Goyal Traders Lala Lajpat Rai Chowk,

Kath Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

…...Respondent.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12  & 13 OF

                 THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:         Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

                    Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:       Sh. Mukesh Jangra, Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. N.S. Sharma, Advocate for OP.

ORDER                                                                             

                    This case was remanded  by the Hon’ble National  Commission vide order dated 25.09.2014 passed in Revision Petition No. 2053 of 2012 to this District Forum, with the direction to dispose of complaint after giving an opportunity for filing reply and evidence to OP.

2.                 The brief facts of the case are that he had paid Rs. 3,49,799/- to the respondent for purchasing 314 PVC pipes of Laxmi Marka 8 inches 6 KGF, length 20 feet costing Rs. 1040/- per pipe for irrigating his land, but the respondent supplied only 121 pipes of Laxmi Marka, but not of 6 KGF, 95 pipes of Sunrise and 98 pipes of Germax.  It is further alleged that respondent had issued two bills No. 11799 dated 29.05.2007 for Rs. 2,45,154/- and No. 11800 dated 29.05.2007 for Rs. 1,04,465/- respectively.  It is further alleged that complainant laid down the pipes under the earth and poured the water through tubewell, but all the pipes and tubewell were leaked and the water could not reach to the fields of the complainant.  It is further alleged that the respondent did not supply the pipes, which agreed to be supplied; therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Hence, the complainant has to file this complaint.

3.                 On notice, OP appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP on the legal objection that all the legal heirs of Radhey Shyam Goyal who was the owner of the firm, have not been impleaded in this case.  He further submitted that the complainant has not paid the balance of Rs. 49,799/- to the OP and to avoid the payment of said balance amount to the OP, the complainant has filed this false and baseless complaint against the OP.  He submitted that the complainant stressed for the supply of pipes for open water flow from the Kanal.  It is submitted that the OP was having the branded PVC pipes of finolex.  It is submitted that on the request of the complainant and after getting Rs. 3 lac in advance, the OP got transported the local pipes for the complainant.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.

5.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record supporting affidavit.

6.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

7.                 Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP were of inferior quality.  He further submitted that the complainant had asked the OP to supply Laxmi Marka pipes and paid Rs. 3 lac in advance to the OP.  The complainant purchased a total number of 314 PVC pipes for a sum of Rs. 3,49,799/- and also paid the balance of Rs. 49,799/- to the OP.  The PVC pipes supplied by the OP were of different Markas and all the pipes were not of Laxmi Marka.  The complainant got fitted the PVC pipes in his fields for irrigation purpose but there was leakage in the “ T ” and the complainant cannot irrigate his fields. 

8.                 Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP on the legal objection that all the legal heirs of Radhey Shyam Goyal who was the owner of the firm, have not been impleaded in this case. He further submitted that the complainant has not paid the balance of Rs. 49,799/- to the OP and to avoid the payment of said balance amount to the OP, the complainant has filed this false and baseless complaint against the OP.  He submitted that the complainant stressed for the supply of pipes for open water flow from the Canal.  The OP was having the branded PVC pipes of Finolix.  On the request of the complainant and after getting Rs. 3 lac in advance, the OP got transported the local pipes for the complainant.  The complainant was told that the pipes are of different Marka.  The counsel for the OP submitted that the pipes as required by the complainant were supplied by the OP.  The complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs. 49,799/- to the OP.

9.                 In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record.  The complainant in support of his contention has produced Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 photo copies of documents issued by the OP to the complainant.  The counsel for the OP drawn our attention to Annexure C-1.  He submitted that this document has been produced by the complainant and in this document different Markas of the pipes which were supplied by the OP to the complainant is clearly mentioned .  The complainant has alleged  the leakage in the PVC pipes and alleged that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP were of inferior quality.  Under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act where the consumer alleges defects in goods then the complainant is required to get analysis or test of the such goods from the appropriate laboratory to find out whether such goods suffer from any defect as alleged in the complaint.  In this case, the complainant has not taken any step and did not follow the procedure as envisaged under the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act to prove that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP suffer from manufacturing defect and are of poor quality.  The complainant has only produced the photo copies of estimate and bills as Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3.  No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP suffer from any manufacturing defect.  The complainant has failed to bring on record any convincing material in support of his version.  As there is no material evidence to show that the PVC pipes supplied by the OP were defective, the complaint of the complainant cannot be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 06.05.2016.                            

                                                                 (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                      President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

          (Ansuya Bishnoi)

              Member.