Date of Filing : 11.06.2012
Date of Order : 28.07.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 28th JULY 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 64 / 2012
Sri. Nagabhushan,
Superintendent / Manager,
Champion Reefs Gold Course,
Hanchala Village, Hudukula Post,
Kasaba Hobli, Bangarapet Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. N. Narayanappa, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. M/s. Birla Zenith India Ltd.,
No. 3/1, 4th Cross, Mysore Road, Old Toll Gate,
Bangalore – 560 026.
(By Sri. B. Keshava Murthy, Adv. for OP1)
2. Omkar Traders,
Near KSRC Bus Stand, Brahmin Street,
Kolar – 563 101.
(By Sri. V.L. Amar, Adv. for OP2) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complaint made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,54,714/- are necessary:
OP1 is the manufacturer of ERW/G.I. Pipes, Steel Pipes & Tubes. OP2 is dealer of OP1 and also dealer of all types of Texmo Pumps, Zenith Steel Pipes, Finolex PVC Pipes & Cables and also V-Guard Cables. Complainant has purchased 45 Nos. of G.I. Pipes of 2”x2” at the rate of Rs.1,638/- amounting to Rs.73,714/- and also purchased Cables, Pumps & Pumpset etc. from OP2 under Invoice No. 1932 dtd. 20.12.2011. During the last week of April 2012 at very second time, when the Complainant with the assistance of men and also chain pulley had been putting down the Motor Pump connecting with said G.I. Pipes into the Bore Well with due care, the thread of the said Pipes were suddenly broken down and hence the Motor Pump had fallen down into the lower rung/bottom of the Bore Well and due to that incidence there is damage to the cable wire, length about 400 mtrs. and sum of Rs.30,000/- was incurred for lifting the said materials like Pipes, Motor Pump, Cable Wires from the rung/bottom of Bore Well and after lifting the said materials on the surface of land, it was noticed that due to the defective quality of the said Pipes pertaining to the thread, such kind of mischief / event occurred and because of that complainant has suffered damage to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. Complainant requested Ops in this regard and sent notice on 12.03.2012 for which OP1 gave untenable reply on 02.04.2012. Hence this Complaint.
2(a). In brief the version of OP1 are
OP1 is a manufacture of G.I. Pipes. On phone call from the Complainant, OP deputed its Executive to inspect the matter and on inspection it was found that G.I. Pipes were in tact. It was not broken and there was no technical defect. There was no defect or problem while installing the G.I. Pipes at the first instance by the Complainant. For the reasons best known to the Complainant, he has removed and lifted the Pipes from the ground and even after lifting the Pipes Complainant has not found any defect or damage in the G.I. Pipes. Even while installing the G.I. Pipes second time, Complainant has not found the defect or damage in the G.I. Pipes. Only on falling G.I. Pipes, he has lodged complaint saying that there is manufacturing defect. It is clear that G.I. Pipe was lifted in an un-professional manner and thread was not fully screwed-up by the Complainant’s end. As a result, Pipes fallen and consequently thread of the G.I. Pipes were damaged for which OP1 is not responsible. OP1 is the manufacturer of G.I. Pipes is admitted. OP2 is not their agent or dealer. OP2 purchases G.I. Pipes from OP1 and sells it on his own. There is no relationship of agent and manufacturer exists between the Ops interse. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of OP2 are
OP1 is manufacturer and OP2 is agent & dealer of G.I. Pipes of OP1. Purchase of G.I. Pipes and other materials from this OP is admitted. While purchasing the materials on 20.12.2011 there was no damage in the G.I. Pipes. While installing at the first instance, Complainant has not found any damage. While lifting the G.I. Pipes from the ground, there was no damage found. While putting down the G.I. Pipes second time, no damage was found. But after falling down of G.I. Pipes, Complainant alleged manufacturing defect pertaining to the thread. This has been done because of the inefficient people handling the Pipes and Machine and because of their negligence Ops cannot be blamed. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their affidavits and documents. Arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether G.I. Pipes purchased by the Complainant of OP1 from OP2 was having manufacturing defect in the thread?
(B) What order ?
5. Our findings are:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that Complainant has purchased 2”x2” G.I. Pipes manufactured by OP1 from OP2 on 20.12.2011 along with other materials under Bill No. 1932 for Rs.73,714/- towards G.I. Pipes and total amount that he has paid Rs.1,59,070/- for purchase of all materials. It is also an admitted fact that Complainant had been putting down Motor Pump connecting with the said G.I. Pipes into the Bore Well in the last week of April 2012 and at that time threads in the G.I. Pipes gave away and entire materials were fallen into the Bore Well which was to be lifted with great difficulties and Complainant has suffered loss in this regard. Complainant gave complaint to the Ops. Ops deputed their men in their field and on their advice, according to the Ops, they declined to compensate. Now, we will have to see whether there is manufacturing defect in the matter.
7. Here, the threads of the G.I. Pipes were damaged and because of that Pump and other things fallen down including the G.I. Pipes which were removed. Further it is also established from the photographs of the threads of the G.I. Pipes that has been produced by the Complainant in this case that threads were damaged. This is only manufacturing defect and not defect occurred owing to the wrong screwing. Owing to negligence or otherwise while putting G.I. Pipes into the Bore Well or connecting it with the Pump by any person. If wrong action was there, Pumps could not go inside the Bore Well, it will certainly damage immediately and not while putting the Pumps etc. into the Bore Well. Hence, the contention of OPs that damage to the threads of G.I. Pipes was caused due to the negligence of the Complainant cannot be accepted.
8. Anyway, OP1 is manufacturer and OP2 is dealer. They could have examined any experts in this regard to show that damage to the threads of the G.I. Pipes was caused not because of the manufacturing defect but because of the wrong handling of the Pipes. But, that has not been done. On the face of it, it means, it is manufacturing defect. Hence, as the Complainant has suffered loss, OPs have to reimburse the same.
9. Complainant and OP2 have clearly stated that OP2 is agent and dealer of G.I. Pipes of OP1 at Kolar. Only OP1 denies dealership and says OP2 has purchased the G.I. Pipes. There is no material for it. Anyway it is a matter interse between the Ops. They can settle their disputes in an appropriate Court or Forum for which this Order will not come in the way. But, they are jointly & severally liable to pay the amount to the Complainant.
10. Here, What is the loss that has been caused? There is no answer. Pumps and other things are still with the Complainant. Complainant’s say that he has spent Rs.1,50,000/- is not even corroborated by any documents, it is self serving statement. Hence, if we direct the Ops to pay Rs.73,714/- with interest from 20.12.2011 and to pay costs of this litigation, that will meet the ends of justice.
11. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and we pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs.73,714/- together with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. from 20.12.2011 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. Ops are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. OPs are directed to send the amount as ordered at (2) & (3) above to the Complainant by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of the Order to the parties concerned free of cost.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under Regulation 20(3) of Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of July 2012)
T. NAGARAJA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member President
SSS
