BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 35 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 28.02.2017.
Date of Order: - 16.01.2019.
Dharambir son of Shri Deep Chand, resident of village Ghasola, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani (now Charkhi Dadri).
….Complainant.
Versus
M/s Kailashpati Pipes Factory, Baghot, Tehsil & District Mahendergarh through its Proprietor Shri Kailash son of Shri Shiv Kumar, presently working at Charkhi Dadri.
…...Opposite Party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Ms. Renu Chaudhary, Member.
Present: Shri D. V. Lamba, Advocate for the complainant.
OP already exparte.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that in the year 2009 he purchased plastic pipes (HDEP Quail 90 mm) weighed 2400 Kilogram @ of Rs.105/- per Kilogram for Rs.2,52,000/- from OP vide bill No. 12 dated 5.11.2009. It is alleged that the OP worked in the surrounding area of Charkhi Dadri. It is further alleged that the OP has gave 15 years guarantee for damage of the pipes by air pressure or water pressure, on his letter pad vide guarantee card No. 59 dated 5.11.2009. It is further alleged that the complainant had installed the same in 38 acres of length from his one field to other field situated in Khewat No. 136 to 138, Khatoni No. 159, Khasra No.30//2/2 by spending a sum of Rs.60,000/- on labor digging by machines and other expenses. It is further alleged that when complainant started to irrigate his agricultural land, it was utter surprise that there was leakage in the said pipes and the complainant approached the OP, but OP paid no heed to his request and on this complainant himself got repaired the pipe line by ten times, but the problem of leakage could not be removed. It is further alleged that the crops of the other farmers destroyed due to leakage of water in whose fields the pipe line passes and due to this they are also facing great problem and loss of crops and they objecting the complainant and asking to remove the leaked pipe otherwise they will not allow to install pipe line from their field. It is further alleged that due to leakage the complainant could not irrigate properly and has suffered great hardship and loss of crops amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and the loss of the complainant still continue. It is further alleged that the OP has requested many times to the OP on telephone and even in writing by meeting personally, but to no effect. It is further alleged that earlier complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed in default on 20.7.2016. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the present complaint.
2. On notice, no one appeared on behalf of OP despite service and the OP was proceeded as exparte by the Forum vide its order dated 30.10.2017. However, during the pendency of this complaint, the file of previous complaint bearing CC No. 179 of 2013 has been taken up. From the perusal of that file, it is found that Shri Ram Kumar Dhangar, Advocate was appeared on behalf of the OP and filed the contested written statement denying the allegations of the complainant. It is admitted by the OP in the written statement in previous complaint the complainant has purchased 3 inch plastic pipes for irrigating his fields. It is alleged that time of purchase of pipe by the complainant there was no subsidy on plastic pipes. It is further alleged that now government is giving subsidy on the plastic pipes and due to this complainant want to return the pipes purchased from OP and want to purchase cheap pipes under subsidy scheme. It is further alleged that the complainant want to lay 6 inch pipe line for which government is giving subsidy. It is further alleged that the complainant has laid the 3 inch pipes for the tube well irrigation and now he want to lay 6 inch pipes for river water irrigation due to ill intention. It is further alleged that the complainant has purchased only 38 acres length pipes from the OP and now he has further purchased 10 acres length pipes from the other company and extended his pipe line. It is further alleged that there is no leakage in the pipes sold by the OP. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed from dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed on record copy of documents Annexure C-i to C-viii in his exparte evidence to prove his version and close the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant at length and gone through the case file carefully.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that the second complaint is maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Indian Machinery Company Vs M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Civil Appeal No.557 of 2016, decided on 27.1.2016. Ld. counsel for the complainant has further contended that in previous complaint a local commission was appointed by this District Forum vide its order dated 19.8.2014. He further contended that the LC has inspected the site and submitted his report dated 8.9.2014. He further contended that the LC in his report dated 8.9.2014 has reported that 12 pipes were found leaked.
6. First of all we have to decide whether the second complaint is maintainable or not. Ld. counsel for the complainant has placed his reliance upon the case titled as Indian Machinery Company Vs M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 557 of 2016, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that second complaint is maintainable. So in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the present second complaint is maintainable and thus, we hereby held that the present complaint is maintainable.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record copy of Local Commission report dated 8.9.2014, copy of order dated 19.8.2014 in CC No. 179 of 2013, copy of bill dated 5.11.2009, copy of guarantee letter given by OP, copy of Jamabandi for the years 2005,06 of village Ghasola and some photographs. From bare perusal of the LC report, it is clear that the leakage was found in total 12 pipes. It is also proved that the OP has failed in redressing the grievance of the complainant despite requests made by the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. On the other hand, the OP even failed to appear before this Forum in the present complaint to rebut the case of the complainant. It appears that the OP has nothing to say in this case to controvert the stand taken by the complainant. Therefore, the case of the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. Therefore, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with costs and OP is directed: -
i. To replace the 12 defective pipes free of costs with new one of the same description (HDEP Quail 90 mm).
- pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship, loss of income and punitive damages, due to deficiency in service on the part of OP.
iii. To pay Rs.7000/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. on total amount as directed above vide clause No. ii & iii from the date of default i.e. after 30 days from the date of this order i.e. 16.1.2019. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 16.01.2019.
(Renu Chaudhary) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
