Challenge in this set of four Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), is to the orders, all dated 20.01.2017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 235, 236, 237 and 238 of 2016, by one M/s Classic Agricone, an expert in installation of poly-house/net-house, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act.  By the impugned orders, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Panipat (for short “the District Forum”) in its orders dated 22.01.2016 in Complaint Cases No. 180, 179, 203 and 178 of 2013 respectively, to the effect that there was delay and defects in the construction of the poly-houses ordered by the Complainants, Respondents No.1 in these Revision Petitions, and hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, the State Commission has modified the final relief granted by the District Forum to the Complainants.  As against the compensation varying between ₹7,00,000/- and ₹8,00,000/-, directed to be paid to the Complainants, in addition to the refund of their share in the subsidy amount, the State Commission has directed the refund of only the amount which was paid by the Complainants to the Petitioner towards the cost of the poly-houses.  

Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, both the Forums below have committed illegality in ignoring the fact that when the defects in the poly-houses were pointed out by the Complainants, the Petitioner had offered to repair the same but the Complainants did not make available the site for carrying out such repairs.  Learned Counsel has also submitted that insofar as the question of delay in construction of the poly-houses is concerned, the committed period for completion of construction was 100 days, which has been wrongly taken as 45 days by the Fora below.  It is also argued that since the poly-houses were got constructed by the Complainants for commercial purposes, they could not be treated as ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

Having perused the material on record, in particular the inspection report prepared by the Senior Government functionaries, in the presence of the Petitioner’s representative and the Complainants/Farmers, as also the report of the Committee of Experts, appointed by the State Commission, comprising the District Horticulture Officer, Panipat; Horticulture Development Officer, Bapoli; Horticulture Development Officer, Panipat; Protection Structure Analyst-1, Panchkula; Protection Structure Analyst-II, Panchkula; and District Gardening Consultant, Panipat, referred to in the impugned order (not filed with the Revision Petitions), we are of the opinion that the present Revision Petitions are without any substance. 

Assuming for the sake of argument that the committed period for completion of the poly-houses was 100 days and not 45 days, as pleaded by the Complainants, the fact remains that at the time of inspection, which was conducted on completion of the poly-houses, serious defects in the foundation of the said poly-houses were noticed by the Committee of Experts.  The Committee was required to inspect the subject houses for the purpose of release of subsidy.  As a matter of fact, in the said report it was recommended that the subsidy should be released, subject to removal of shortcomings mentioned at three places in the said report.  Thus, the concurrent finding of fact that the poly-houses fabricated by the Petitioner were defective, is based on cogent material and, therefore, does not warrant interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction.

As regards the objection that the Complainants are not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of the Act because they had availed of services of the Petitioner for commercial purpose, viz. production and sale of agriculture produce, the argument is stated to be rejected.  Merely because the Complainants/Farmers had opted for the poly-houses in order to avoid damage to the crops and for better yield, it cannot be said that the farming activity of the Complainants was not for the purpose of earning their livelihood.

Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.

It is clarified that if the Petitioner is otherwise entitled to release of the subsidy as per the Scheme, floated by the government, it will be open to it to make appropriate representation to the Competent Authority, if so advised, and the same shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by the dismissal of the present Revision Petitions.