JUDGMENT

JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          In the year 2008-2009, the complainant/petitioner got constructed a greenhouse under a scheme of the Government called ‘Rashtriya Bagwani Mission’.  Under the said scheme, the small scale/limited farmers were to get subsidy of 50% or the maximum of Rs. 325 per sq. metre.  For general farmers, the subsidy was restricted to 33% or the maximum of Rs. 215/- per sq. metre.  The small scale/limited farmers get further subsidy to 25%, whereas the general farmers get further subsidy of 17% from the State, thereby taking the total subsidy to 75% for the small scale/limited farmers and 50% in case of general farmers.  According to the complainant, he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,62,500/- to the opposite parties, being his share in the cost of the construction of the greenhouse and he spent a further amount of Rs. 50,000/- on digging and construction.  The apparatus supplied to the complainant carried a warranty of three years against any manufacturing defect.  In the first week of May, 2009, polythene of one of the domes of the greenhouse got torn due to strong winds.  However, the polythene was not replaced by the opposite parties.  As a result, the entire greenhouse got damaged.  The complainant further approached the District Forum, seeking a sum of Rs. 9,01,000/-, comprising Rs. 7 lakhs which he expected to earn and Rs. 2,12,000/- being the amount spent by him on construction of the greenhouse.

Only opposite party no. 1 filed reply to the complaint, denying the allegations made in the complaint.

2.      The District Forum, vide order dated 07.06.2012, directed both the opposite parties to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs.  Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the opposite party no. 2, M/s. Rajasthan Hitech Product Company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  Vide impugned order dated 21.03.2014, the appeal filed by the opposite party no. 2 was allowed by the State Commission.  Being aggrieved from the order of the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

3.      A perusal of the order of the State Commission would show that the State Commission felt that the requisite construction material for the greenhouse had been provided by opposite party no. 1, Shrihari Greenhouse (P) Ltd. and only construction on the basis of the said material was carried out by opposite party no. 2, M/s. Rajasthan Hitech Product Company.  Holding that there was no direct evidence of deficiency in the services of the opposite party no. 2, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by it.

4.      Since no one has appeared for the petitioner, we have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.  The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 states that they, of their own, did not provide any warranty to the complainant.  He further states that since the polythene used for the greenhouse was provided by opposite party no. 1, there could be no question of opposite party no. 2 giving any warranty for the said material.

5.      The learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has drawn our attention to the letter dated 12.06.2011, written by opposite party no. 1 to the Assistant Director, Directorate of Horticulture, Alwar, Rajasthan, stating therein that the manufacturer of polythene provides warranty only against manufacturing defects such as UV de-gradation and there is no warranty against damages due to heavy wind velocity or any kind of cyclonic wind pressure.  It was further stated in the said letter that heavy cyclonic wind can damage polyethylene as well as greenhouse structure.  It was claimed in the aforesaid letter that there was no agreement between the complainant and the said company to provide free of costs repairs.

6.      A perusal of the inspection report from the Assistant Director, Directorate of Horticulture, Alwar would show that initially the polythene got torn in the first week of May, but it was not replaced at that time.  As a result, strong winds of May/June entered the greenhouse from the space created by tearing of the polythene in the first week of May and damaged the greenhouse.

7.      No evidence was led by the complainant to prove that any warranty against damage to the polythene from cyclone/strong winds was given by opposite party no. 2 to the complainant.  There is no expert evidence produced by the complainant to prove that a polythene free from any manufacturing defect will not get torn on account of strong winds or cyclone.  In the absence of such expert evidence, we cannot accept the contention that the polythene had got torn on account of some manufacturing defect in the material.  The onus was upon the complainant to prove that the polythene, free from manufacturing defect, would have withstood the cyclone/strong winds which struck the greenhouse in the first week of May.  That having not been done and considering the claim of opposite party no. 1 that the manufacturer gives warranty only against the manufacturing defect such as UV de-gradation, the District Forum was not justified in holding that there was a manufacturing defect in the polythene, which opposite party no. 2 had used for the erection of the greenhouse.

8.      There is no agreement placed by the complainant on record, obligating opposite party no. 2 to repair the damage to the greenhouse such as tearing of the polythene free of costs.  Therefore, when the strong winds/cyclone hit the greenhouse in the first week of May, the complainant should have got the same repaired/replaced at his own costs.  In fact, there is no evidence even of the complainant having made a complaint to opposite party no. 2 requesting it to replace the polythene which had got torn in the first week of May.

9.       In these circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the view taken by the State Commission.  The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.