West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/1/2017

Subhas Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nandalal Enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

Asim Kumar Dutta

30 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.01/2017

 

                                                  Subhas Das, S/o Kanta Das, Vill. & P.O. Khursi, P.S. Narayangarh,

                                                                                     District - Paschim Medinipur.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

1. Nandalal Enterprises, Proprietor Jaydeb Das, Vill. Kotaigarh, P.S. Narayangarh, District- Paschim Medinipur, pin-721437.
2. Natraj Piper. At Chatterjee International Centre, 33A, J.L.Nehru Road, 12^th Floor, Kolkata-700071.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Parties.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Asim Kumar Das, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : 

 

Decided on: - 30/10/2017

                               

ORDER

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member –

Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

The complainant purchased 200 MM, 8 inch pipe and total length of 280 feet pipes from O.P. no.1 on 17/01/2015, worth of Rs.50,120 along with other materials for installation of mini deep tube well.  After four days of installation of mini deep tube well totally stopped to supply water, then said mini deep tube well with all pipes was lifted and found due to damaged pipe the said tube well was unable to supply water.  Complainant informed the matter to O.P. no.1 on 06/07/2015 and O.P. no.1 assured for compensation

 

Contd…….P/2

                                                                                                  ( 2 )

but did not arrange for compensation.  Finding no way complainant appeared before this forum for getting relief and compensation.  

                  The opposite party no.1 has contested this case by filling a written statement.  

denying the allegations of complainant stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, complainant purchased 8 inch 280 feet pipe after proper verification and checking the same and thereafter made payment. Complainant never produced any damaged pipe to the shop of O.P. no.1, O.P. no.1 pray for dismissal of this case.

               In spite of service of notice upon O.P. no.2, none on behalf of O.P. no.2 neither appear nor contested the case, hence the case against O.P. no.2 is heard ex parte.

 

Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                   

Decision with reasons

All the points are taken together for convenience.  Brevity and consideration, we have carefully perused the complaint documents and evidence and it appears that complainant being a consumer purchased some pipes for installation of mini deep tube well for agriculture purpose and after few days of installation of mini deep tube well, water supply totally stopped.  Thereafter lifting the said tube well, complainant found the pipes were damaged and intimated the O.P. no.1 with a request to grant compensation but in vain.

To prove his case complainant adduced evidence and tendered himself as PW-1 and submitted documents which are (marked as exhibit 1 to 5).  Complainant also cross-examined by O.P. no.1 and admitted that at the time of purchasing of pipes in question there was no damage and after fitting of those pipes in mini deep tube well, water was supplied about four days.  Complainant also adduced evidence of PW-2 who happens to be a drilling mechanic who installed the mini deep tube well with those pipes and he admitted in his evidence that after installation of said tube well water came out for few days thereafter complainant informed that mud water was coming and I also saw it.  PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that he had no licence as drilling mechanic for doing such type of work.

 

We find from the cash memo receipt issued by O.P. no.1 that complainant purchased 8 inch 280 feet pipe on 17/01/2015 from O.P. no.1 but in the said receipt there was no

 

Contd…….P/3

                                                                                                     ( 3 )

endorsement about warranty or guarantee about said pipes.  Complainant also not produced any paper in respect of warranty or guarantee or adduced any cogent evidence in regard to warrantee or guarantee of those pipes.  We are unable to rely the statement made in X for identification by the who is not an expert person who can say the grade, gravity, longevity of the pipes. 

In view of the above discussions, we think in the instant case, this Forum can only decide whether goods were defective and whether there is any warranty or guarantee of purchased goods.  It reveals from the evidence that complainant himself after checking and verifying the pipes purchased the same and made payment and he also admitted that there was no warranty or guarantee over the purchased pipes.  It also appears from the evidence that if the pipes were initially damaged or defective then how after installation of mini pump water came out for four days for irrigation purpose.  We think that if water level or layer is fall, then flaw of water supply may slow down and water supply is stopped in case of such mini deep tube well or submersible pump, whose water supply capacity is high range.  In respect of damaged pipe it can easily say that when the tube well mechanic tried to lift the deep tube well along with the pipes, then pipes can be damaged due to creating presser for lifting the pipes and it reveals from the documents signed by Debu Raul (marked X for identification) where said local mechanic admits that at the time of lifting pipes due to heavy presser some pipes were damaged.  Moreover, as there was no warranty or guarantee of the purchased pipes in question so the seller or manufacturer cannot be liable to compensate for the damage.

In view of the discussion here in before we find that complainant being a consumer has failed to prove his case and O.Ps have no deficiency in service as such complainant is not entitled is get any relief.                     

                     In the result, the complaint case fails,

 

                                                           Hence, it is,

                                                             Ordered,

                                                              that the complaint case no.01/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                      

                            Member                                                                                    President 

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur