THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 541 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 01.12.2011.
Date of Decision: -09.02.2016.
Dharampal aged 60 years son of Shri Juglal, resident of village Devrala, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Rishipal Phogat, Manager Swati Storwel Private Limited, near Railway Crossing Kharkadi Mor, Bhiwani.
- Chief Manager, Swati Storwel Private Limited, 44-45 Industrial Area, Sector 1, Parwanoo (Himanchal Pradesh).
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Sanjay Dadma, Advocate for complainant
Shri Sikander, Advocate for OP no. 1.
OP no. 2 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant paid Rs. 79,380/- to the Ops for purchasing of 239 PVC Pipes of 90 MM diameter vide bill dated 27.03.2010. It is alleged the Agricultural Development Officer vide his inspection report dated 07.10.2011 that the PVC Pipes installed under the ground in the field of the complainant are of 75 MM diameter, except 2 pipes fixed on the both ends are of 90 MM diameter, hence no grant was given to the complainant under the sanctioned scheme of the Government. 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.He
2. On appearance, OP no. 1 has filed written statement alleging therein that no notice in this regard was ever served to the answering respondent and further more a much delayed complaint has been filed which is
given a good opportunity to the complainant to change the material i.e. pipe supplied in order to earn a profite arising out of the difference of cost price between 90 MM pipes and 75 MM pipes, as the farmers who irrigate their fields with sprinkler system do opt to purchase 75 MM pipes for irrigation. It is submitted that the answering respondent has supplied 90 MM pipes as per demand and which were duly checked by the complainant before taking its delivery at the shop of the answering respondent. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 2 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.07.2013.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite party no. 1 has placed on record supporting affidavit.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant paid Rs. 79,380/- to the Ops for purchasing of 239 PVC Pipes of 90 MM diameter vide bill dated 27.03.2010 Annexure C-1. He further submitted that the Agricultural Development Officer vide his inspection report dated 07.10.2011 Annexure C-2 that the PVC Pipes installed under the ground in the field of the complainant are of 75 MM diameter, except 2 pipes fixed on the both ends are of 90 MM diameter, hence no grant was given to the complainant under the sanctioned scheme of the Government.
8. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of his reply. He argued that the complainant has filed false complaint against the Ops to grab money, and Ops have supplied all PVC Pipes of 90 MM diameter to the complainant vide bill Annexure C-1.
9. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The inspection report dated 07.10.2011 Annexure C-2 has been issued by the Agricultural Development Officer of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer Bhiwani, clearly mentions that the pipes fixed under the ground in the fields of the complainant examined by him alongwith surveyor Dalbir Singh on the spot. They found that the pipes fixed on the both ends of the pipe line are of 90 MM diameter and the remaining pipes are of 75 MM diameter. Hence, no grant can be given to the complainant, because the PVC pipes were not according to the sanctioned estimate. Copies of documents Annexure C-2 to Annexure C-6 have been obtained by the complainant under the RTI Act from the concerned officials. There is no ground to disbelieve the said report dated 07.10.2011 of Agricultural Development Officer. No evidence has been adduced by the opposite party in support of his contention. Considering the facts of the case, we hold that the opposite party except 2 PVC pipes out of 239 supplied remaining the pipes of 75 MM diameter. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs. 2500/- as litigation cost. This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-09.02.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
