BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 176 of 2017.
Date of Institution: 22.12.2017.
Date of Decision: 13.06.2019.
Sri Bhagwan @ Kalu son of Shri Ram Kumar, resident of village Nigana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak.
….Complainant.
Versus
M/s Radhe Shyam Vijay Kumar, Anaj Mandi, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory.
…...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: - Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.
Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.
Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Kuldeep Sharma, Advocate for the OP.
ORDER:-
PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he purchased 35 Plastic Pipes alongwith joints/latches from the OP vide bill No.7785 dated 13.7.2017 and the value of one pipe has been fixed as Rs.590/- and thus total Rs.20,650/- has been paid. It is alleged that the OP has assured the complainant in respect of high standard quality of the said pipes. It is further alleged that when complainant started to irrigate his fields with the help of these pipes, but the complainant has noticed that the said pipes started to crack from corner side and he immediately visited the shop of OP and made complaint regarding defectiveness of the pipes and on this the OP has only repaired 2-3 pipes and thereafter flatly refused to repair the remaining defective pipes. It is further alleged that due to manufacturing defects in the pipes sold by OP, the complainant is unable to irrigate his field and the purpose for which he has purchased the pipes became fruitless and the crops of the complainant has been destroyed and he has suffered a loss of more than Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant has requested many times to the OP to replace the defective pipes or to refund the cost of Rs.20,650/-, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the complainant has sent a legal notice to the OP through his counsel Shri R. S. Dhanda, Advocate, Charkhi Dadri on dated 8.12.2017, but to no effect. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.
2. On appearance, the OP filed the contested written statement alleging therein that the OP firm is working as dealer of PVC pipe and fitting for about last 15 years and the firm has a reputation in this field in the area of District Charkhi Dadri and nearby areas. It is alleged that the OP has sold the pipes to the complainant in good conditions and the complainant used those pipes for about one year then he hatched a conspiracy for false gains. It is further alleged that the complainant has wrongly stated the fact that any guarantee has been given to him for one year. It is further alleged that the complainant has falsely concocted story that any written guarantee or assurance has been given to him or he has came to the shop of OP regarding complaint or defects in the pipes. It is further alleged that there is no manufacturing defects in the pipes. It is further alleged that the OP always tried to help complainant in all best possible ways, but the complainant tried to grab illegal gains. It is further alleged that the complainant irrigating his fields before he purchased the pipes from the OP and the OP is only a marketing company. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C2 in evidence and closed the evidence.
4. Ld. Counsel for the OP has failed in placing on record some documentary evidence in support of their version despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities and the evidence of the OP was closed vide order dated 31.5.2019.
5. We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. There cannot be any dispute on the question of facts and law that the onus of proof lies with the complainant to prove his case. But the ground realities in the case in hand are different because a farmer cannot be expected to be an expert person to place all the facts before the Forum. From the perusal of copy of bill Annexure C2, it is clear that the complainant had purchased 35 plastic pipes from OP for a total sum of Rs. 20,650/- vide Bill No.7785 dated 13.7.2017. The said pipes were laid down in the fields by the complainant for irrigating his agricultural land. The complainant has taken the plea that the pipes started to crack from corner side and he immediately informed the OP about the same.
7. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above it has been clearly proved that due to poor and sub-standard quality of pipes, the pipes started to crack from the corner side and due non-irrigating his fields, the complainant has been deprived of the income of land and has to bear the losses. So, it is clear cut grave deficiency in service on the part of OP and complainant has suffered huge financial losses, but the complainant not fully succeed in proving on record about the fact that how many pipes were cracked from corner side and he also failed to prove that how much loss suffered by him.. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP is directed:-
i) To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation due to defective pipes and loss of crop to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.
ii) To pay Rs.1100/- (Eleven hundred only) as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order. 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: - 13.06.2019.
(Saroj Bala Bohra) (Parmod Kumar) (Manjit Singh Naryal)
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
