Karnataka

Kolar

CC/49/2019

Sri.K.Hemanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Zam Zam Steel Center - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2020

ORDER

Date of Filing: 09.07.2019

Date of Disposal: 06.01.2020

 

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 06^th DAY OF JANUARY 2020

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

C.C.NO.49 OF 2019

Sri. K. Hemanna,

S/o. Krishnappa.K.N,

Aged About 57 Years,

R/at: Kondenahalli Village,

Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapura Taluk.         

(In-person)                                                                          ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

1) The Proprietor,

Zam Zam Steel Center,

Dealers in Iron and Steel,

Pipes, Angles, Sheets, Cements,

Chamarajpet Railway Station Road,

Chikkaballapura-562 101.

(Rep. by Sri. U. Muniraju, Advocate)

 

2) Reeyaz,

Aged About 55 Years,

(Pipe Slaughted)

R/at: Chamarajpet Railway Station

Road, Chikkaballapura-562 101.

(Rep. by Sri. S.K. Somegowda, Advocate)                      ….. Opposite Parties.

: ORDERS :

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this consumer complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, loss in the agriculture land, etc., and to allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, the complainant is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No.132 to an extent of 01 acre situated at Kondenahalli Village, Nandi Hobli, Chikkaballapur Taluk, consisting of borewell and he is doing agriculture in the said property and eaking out his livelihood.  The complainant has dugged new borewell on the said land for which he purchased PVC Finolex pipes from OP No.1 through OP No.2 for Rs.31.860/- vide invoice No.1042, dated: 10.08.2018.  the OP No.1 delivered the said pipes and thereafter the complainant has installed the said pipes to his borewell and the same are functioned for five days only thereafter the said pipes were pressed inside the borewell and the water was not flowing and thereafter the complainant removed the motor and found that, the entire pipes were pressed as the said pipes were of low quality.  The complainant approached the OP No.1 and asked him to replace, but OP No.1 failed to replace the pipes and so also failed to pay the amount and all the efforts made by the complainant are went in vain.  The complainant has suffered mentally, physically and has sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/-.  On 15.02.2019 the complainant has given letter to OP No.1 requesting him to replace the said pipes, but the OP No.1 has given false and untenable reply on 22.02.2019 and all the efforts made by him were went in vain and filed this complaint against the OPs and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   OP Nos.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel separately and filed their version.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 filed similar version and specifically denied the averments made in para-2 to 4 of the complaint as false and put the complainant to prove the same and the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  OP No.1 has contended that, he is the proprietor and OP No.2 is not known to him and he is no way concerned and OP No.2 contended that, OP No.1 is not known to him and OP No.2 is in no way connected to OP No.1.  OP No.1 further contended that, the complainant had purchased the Finolex PVC piles 160 m (6G) which are used to supply of water by installing the same in the land to raise the crops.  OP No.1 further contended that, the complainant has used the said pipes for casing and the casing pipes is iron pipes and the complainant had purchased the plastic PVC pipes from OP No.1 and instead of using or installing the iron casing pipes the complainant has used the plastic pipes.  OP No.2 has contended that, the complainant has purchased   Finolex PVC pipes 160m (6G) which are used to supply of water by installing the same in the land to raise the crops is not known to him.  But the complainant has used the said pipes for casing and the casing pipes are the iron pipes and the complainant has purchased the plastic PVC pipes from OP No.1 and installing of the same is not known to him.  The defect of the said pipes is only due to the negligence of the complainant.  OPs further contended that, OP No.1 is only the dealer of the said pipes and he is not the owner or the Managing Director of the said pipe company and if any defect was held he has to make the manufacturer as a party, but the complainant has not at all made the manufacturer as a party and it suffers from non-joinder of necessary party and the complaint is to be dismissed on that ground.  OPs further contended that, the complainant has suppressed the true and real facts and filed this false complaint and he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and prays to dismiss the said complaint. 

04.   On 08.11.2019 the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and produced three documents i.e.,

(i) Xerox copy of the bill – Annexure-A

(ii) Xerox copy of reply dated: 22.02.2019 – Annexure-B

(iii) Xerox copy of letter issued by complainant – Annexure-C

 

05.   On 19.11.2019 both OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed their respective affidavits by way of examination-in-chief.  On 13.12.2019 both OP Nos.1 & 2 have filed respective written arguments.

 

06.   Heard the arguments of complainant.

 

07.   Now the Points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

1. Whether the complainant proves  deficiency of service on the part of OPs?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed by him?

 

3.  What order?

 

08.   Our findings to the above points are that:-

 

POINT Nos.1 & 2:    Are in the Negative

POINT No.3:            As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

POINT Nos.1 & 2:-

09.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both the parties and so also the documents produced by the complainant and written arguments submitted by OP Nos1 & 2.  The complainant has filed this complaint against OPs and prays to direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages, loss in agriculture land, etc.,.  It is an admitted fact that, the complainant had purchased PVC Finolex Pipes from OP No.1 and to that effect the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the Invoice as per Annexure-A dated: 10.08.2018 for Rs.31,860/-, Xerox copy of the reply notice as per Annexure-B and Xerox copy of the letter issued by the complainant as per Annexure-C.

 

10.   The complainant has contended that, he has purchased the PVC Finolex Pipes from OP No.1 for Rs.31,860/- vide Invoice No.1042, dated: 10.08.2018 as per Annexure-A and on the same day the OP has delivered the said pipes.  The complainant has installed the said pipes to his borewell and it worked only for five days and thereafter the said pipes were pressed and the water was not flowing.  The complainant has removed the motor and found that, the entire pipes were pressed as the said pipes are of low quality.  The complainant contacted OP No.1 to replace the said pipes or to refund the amount and are all goes in vain.  But to support the fact of low quality pipes the complainant has not subjected the alleged PVC pipes for testing before the competent laboratory nor produced any expert evidence to prove the defects in the alleged pipes or deficiency of service on the part of OPs though it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove the same.

 

11.   On the other hand, OP No.1 has specifically contended that, the complainant has purchased the Finolex PVC pipes 160mm (6G) which are used to supply of water and the complainant has used the said pipes for casing and the casing pipes are the iron pipes and the complainant has purchased the plastic PVC pipes instead of iron casing pipes and the complainant is negligent in using the PVC pipes instead of iron casing pipes. 

 

12.   On perusal of the above said material facts and Annexure-A i.e., invoice for purchase of Finolex PVC pipes 160mm (6G) and Annexure-C i.e., reply notice of OP No.1 are clearly goes to show that, the complainant has used the said PVC pipes instead of iron casing pipes and PVC pipes are pressed as they are not iron casing pipes, hence the complainant himself is negligent in that regard and the complainant has not made out any case against OPs for deficiency of service.

 

13.   The OP No.1 has also taken up the defence that, the complainant has not made the manufacturer as a party to the proceedings and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  As the complainant has made allegation about low quality pipes and for which the manufacturer is one of the necessary party to the proceedings, but the complainant has not made the manufacturer as party to the proceedings, hence the complaint filed by the complainant is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

 

14.   Hence under these circumstances as discussed above, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and accordingly we answer Point Nos.1 & 2 are in the negative.  

 

POINT No.3:-

15.   In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 06^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT