THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 233 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 12.08.2014.
Date of Decision: -24.06.2016.
Hawa Singh @ Chhanga son of Shri Jailal, resident of village Chirya, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani, Haryana.
….Complainant.
Versus
- R.S. Irritech Private Limited, SCF-53, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani Haryana, through its General Manager/Director.
- Rattan (Aggarwal), Manager, R.S. Irritech Private Limited, SCF-53, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
- Arvind Kumar, Authorized Signatory/dealing person, R.S. Irritech Private Limited, SCF-53, Vikas Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Manjeet Chahar, Advocate for complainant
Ops already exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 100 numbers of pipes at the rate of Rs. 840 per pipe from the Ops against the payment of Rs. 84,000/- in cash on dated 18.06.2012. It is alleged that the Ops instead of issuing bill directly in the name of the complainant have issued bill against order no. 000110, challan no. RS/BWN/PVC/12-13/110 dated 18.06.2012 in the name of Hindustan Phawara Agency, Charkhi Dadri. It is alleged that soon after delivery, installed the underground line with these pipes purchased in the month of October, 2012 for irrigating the crop of crop year 2012-13, but to the utmost surprise to the complainant the pipes which the Ops claimed are capable of bearing pressure of upto 15 HP pump sets, could not bear pressure of 7.5 HP pump set of the complainant’s tubewell. It is alleged that the pipe line installed by the complainant became useless and furthermore crop also got damaged due to lack of irrigation facility. The complainant requested the Ops to change the defective and inferior quality pipelines with pipes of good quality but they have not changed the pipes. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04.10.2013 to change all pipes with immediate effect but of no use Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he has to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. OPs no. 1 to 3 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 12.12.2014.He
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 & Annexure C2 and affidavit Mark A1 to Mark A4.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant referred the bill dated 18.06.2012 Annexure C-1 stated to be issued by the OP in favour of the complainant but the said bill has not been issued in favour of Hindustan Phwara Agency, Dadri, Haryana. He submitted that the said bill was delivered to the OP to the complainant and he sought the time to produce the document to prove that the said bill has not been issued by the OP to the complainant. He produced a bill dated 23.06.2014 alongwith his application wherein he has stated that out of 100 pipes the OP has replaced the 75 pipes vide bill 23.06.2014 Annexure A-5. He submitted that now the Ops are liable to replace the remaining 25 pipes and pay the compensation.
6. Admittedly, the bill dated 18.06.2012 Annexure C-1 has been issued by the OP in favour of Hindustan Phwara Agency, Dadri, Haryana the said firm has not been impleaded as OP in the complaint. The said bill is not in the name of the complainant. Now at the stage of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has produced the bill dated 23.06.2014 Annexure A-5 which has been issued in favour of Hindustan Fawara Agency, Dadri, Haryana and subsequently the name of the complainant has been mentioned to show that the OP has replaced the 75 pipes out of the 100 pipes. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 12.08.2014 and as per the contention of the complainant 75 pipes have been replaced by the OP on 23.06.2014 well before the date of filing of the present complaint. But the complainant has not disclosed this fact in his complaint and he concealed the material facts necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the complaint. From the bills produced by the complainant it seems that the said pipes have been supplied by him through his local dealer who has not been made party to the complaint. The counsel for the complainant has admitted that the 75 pipes out of 100 pipes have been replaced by the OP and now his claim remains for 25 pipes. We are enable to understand why the 25 pipes have not been replaced by the OP when he has replaced 75 pipes of the complainant at his own. If there had been any defect in the 25 pipes then complainant could have got it replaced from the OP. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant that the pipes are having any manufacturing defect. No test report has been procured by the complainant under Section 13 (1) (c ) of the Consumer Protection Act from the authorized laboratory in support of his contention.
7. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the above discussion, we do not find merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-24.06.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member
