BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                

                                                          Complaint No.: 170 of 2017.

                                                          Date of Institution: 05.12.2017.

                                                          Date of Decision: 08.07.2019.

Kirori Lal son of Shri Om Parkash, resident of village Balkhra, Post Office Mauri, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.

                                                                   ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Proprietor Raj Yadav Machinery Store, Rohtak Road, Charkhi Dadri Mobile: - 9466281039.

2.       Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bhiwani.

3.       Manager Tirupeti Strurais Ltd.         

    …...Opposite Parties.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                   THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Sandeep Sheoran, Advocate for the OP No. 1.

OPs No. 2 and 3 already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he purchased 241 Plastic Pipes 3 inch of 20 feet length from OP No. 1 and paid Rs. 1,45,215/- and on demanding bill the OP No. 1 told that the bill will be handed over to ADO and he also told that the subsidy will be credited in the Bank account of the complainant.  It is alleged that the OP No. 1 had given Kasta company pipes and the same were laid down under the earth by the complainant, but the bill was given of Tirupeti Strurais Ltd. And the subsidy amount of Rs. 33,750/- has been credited in the account of the complainant in Bank of India on 23.11.2016.  It is further alleged that the subsidy amount was less, as the subsidy of Rs.60,000/- is to be credited in the complainant’s account.  It is further alleged that the complainant has requested the OPs many times to pay the remaining amount of subsidy and also moved applications on CM Window, but to no effect.  Thus, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                On appearance, OP No. 1 filed contested written statement denying all the allegation of the complainant.  It is alleged that answering OP has sold the pipes of Kasta Company and bill of the said pipes has also been issued to complainant of Kasta Company, who is manufacturer of the pipes purchased by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the answering OP is not authorized dealer of Tirupati Strurais Ltd. nor bill of said company has been issued to the complainant.  It is further alleged that regarding the matter of less amount of subsidy, the same is not related with the answering OP, rather the same is related with State Government and answering OP has not role in the matter.  It is further alleged that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party as the amount of subsidy is related with the Government of Haryana, but the same has not been impleaded as necessary party.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 2 was proceeded as exparte vide order dated 1.2.2018.  On notice one Shri Subhash, representative appeared on behalf of the OP No. 3 on 1.2.2018, but failed in filing written statement on behalf of the OP No. 3 despite availing several opportunities and the defense of the OP No.3 was struck off vide order dt. 18.9.2018.  Lateron no one appeared on behalf of the OP No. 3 and the OP No. 3 was also proceeded as exparte vide order dated 9.4.2019.

4.                The complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C5 in evidence and closed the evidence.

5.                Ld. Counsel for the OP No. 1 has placed on record document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence. 

6.                We have heard both the parties at length and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.                There cannot be any dispute on the question of facts and law that the onus of proof lies with the complainant to prove his case. But the ground realities in the case in hand are different because a farmer cannot be expected to be an expert person to place all the facts before the Forum.  From the perusal of copy of bill dated 15.5.2014 Annexure C2 prepared by the OP No. 1 on his letter pad, it is clear that complainant had purchased 241 plastic pipes from OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs. 1,48,215/-.  Said pipes were laid down in the fields by the complainant for irrigating his agricultural land.  The complainant has taken the plea that the OP No. 1 has given the pipes of Kasta company, whereas the bill was given of Trupeti Strurais Ltd. company and due to this less subsidy paid to him and thus OP No. 1 has cheated him.  The complainant in support of his plea has placed on record copy of bill Annexure C1.  During the pendency of the case, on the application of the complainant, Shri Satender Ghanghas Advocate was appointed as local commission vide order dated 9.4.2019 and Local commission has submitted his report dated 3.7.2019.  As per the report of LC, the pipes laid down by the complainant in his fields are of Kasta company.

7.                Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above it has been clearly proved that due to issuance of bill of Trupeti Strurais Ltd. company the complainant has suffered financial losses, as he was given less subsidy, as alleged by the complainant. So, it is clear cut grave deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complainant has suffered huge financial losses, but the complainant not fully succeed in proving on record about how much loss suffered to him. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP is directed:-

i)        To pay Rs.26,250/- (Twenty six thousand two hundred fifty only) on account of subsidy to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its final realization.

ii)       To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment & hardship due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

iii)      To pay Rs.5000/- (Five thousand only) as litigation charges.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: - 08.07.2019.               

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                    (Parmod Kumar)        (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                        Member.                          President,

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                     Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.