Haryana

Kurukshetra

256/2017

Malkait Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Roshan Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Manocha

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.256 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 13.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision: 30.08.2019.

 

Malkit Singh son of Shri Darshan Singh, age 37 years, resident of village Daulatpur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

M/s.Roshan Engineering Works Ladwa Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra through its partner/proprietor.

….Opposite party.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh. Gurinder Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Malkit singh against Roshan Engineering works the opposite party.

2.            This case was firstly filed in Court in DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar and withdraw by the complainant after permission which is on the file order of 17.11.2017 of DCDRF, Yamuna Nagar on the file, in which complaint have granted permission to file new case in proper Court.

3.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is agriculturist and he wanted to install submersible tubewell in his fields. The agent of the Op contacted to him and his father and offered to supply the tube-well boaring material i.e submersible pipe, submersible pump and other material at reasonable rate at the fields of complainant. It is alleged that the Op has also assured the complainant that he would supply submersible pipes of ISI Mark and of goods quality with two years guarantee/warrantee and install in the fields of the complainant. The Op visited the site/field of complainant alongwith their mechanic namely Dharamraj and after inspection the Op gave estimate of Rs.48,962/- to install the submersible mentioned in the estimate prepared by OP. It is further alleged that the complainant agreed for installing submersible pump alongwith material from the Op on the basis of assurance and rough estimate of OP. It is further alleged that on 23.06.2014 the Op brought one piece of 30 Horse Power, four stage submersible pump/motor make Jeel and also brought 15 pieces of submersible delivery pipes, adaptor and small piece of cable at the spot and installed the same in the boaring in the field of the complainant. At the time of installation, the Op told that the pipe and submersible pump were of superior quality and has been properly installed. Thereafter, the complainant made the payment of Rs.48,962/- to the Op at the spot in the presence of Dharshan Singh, Panch and other villagers. It is further alleged that the complainant started irrigating his fields through the tube-well. In the month of May, 2015 the complainant has planted paddy crop in his fields but during irrigation of paddy crop, tube-well in question stopped working all of sudden. The complainant got checked the same from local mechanic, who told that the delivery pipe has broken and a submersible pump/motor fell down in the boaring. The complainant immediately informed the Op in the month of May, 2015 and OP send their mechanic Dharamraj at the spot and removed the delivery pipes from the boaring and found that the pipe was broken from the place, where submersible pump was fitted. It was also told by the mechanic that the pipe failed to borne the weight/load of submersible pump. The pipe was broken due to manufacturing defect and due to inferior quality and submersible pump fell down in the boaring. The complainant got clicked the photographs of the broken pipe and reported the matter to the Op. The complainant has also moved an application before the Agriculture Development Officer Radaur to inspect the tube-well and boaring and delivery pipe material. On the request of complainant Block Agriculture Development Officer visited the spot and found that the submersible delivery pipes were off inferior quality and was not ISI Mark and further reported that the pipe was broken due to of its inferior quality. It is further alleged that the complainant many times contacted to OP and requested him to replace the material and to install pipe and submersible pump of superior quality with ISI Mark. On this the OP started prolonging the matter on the pretext or the other. In the month of October 2015, the OP flatly refused to install submersible delivery pipe in the boaring of the complainant and further refused to compensate the complainant. Due to failure of tube-well the complainant suffered crop loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. That the above act and conduct on the part of op amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and op has harassed the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

4.             On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, clean hand, estoppal, mis joinder and non joinder, jurisdiction, suppression of true and material facts. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased from the Op only one pump of 30 HP four stage submersible motor. It is denied that the complainant purchased 15 pipes of submersible delivery pipes etc. It is submitted that the agricultural development officer is not a competent and authorized person to give report regarding PVC pipes. The complainant only got the estimate on 23.06.2014 by Dharamraj. The motor pump was purchased by complainant on 23.06.2014, however no alleged pipes were ever sold by the Op to the complainant as alleged by him. It is denied that the OP ever visited the site/fields of the complainant.  It is further denied that the mechanic namely Dharamraj has any concern with the answering Op, rather Sh. Dharamraj is resident of complainant’s village. It is denied that the answering Op ever given any assurance or estimate to the complainant. The answering Op never delivered the pipe of submersible delivery pies etc to the complainant, however the answering Op sold only the motor set to the complainant, which is working properly till date. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

5.             The counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for op tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

7.             Learned counsel of the complainant contended that complainant had purchased boaring material i.e submersible pipes, submersible pumps and other materials from the opposite party on 23.06.2014. The opposite party assured that he has supplied submersible pipes of ISI Mark and of good quality with two years warrantee. In the month of May, 2015 the complainant has planted paddy crop in his fields but during irrigation of paddy crop, tube-well in question stopped working all of sudden. The complainant got checked the same from local mechanic, who told that the pipes which was given by the opposite party has broken and submersible pump/motor fell down in the boaring. That pipes were broken due to manufactured defects and due to inferior quality and submersible pumps fell down in the boaring. The complainant also has taken photographs of pipes which is Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6. Counsel of the complainant again contended that complainant has registered a complaint in Block Agriculture Development Office then he visited the spot and gave of Ex. C-2 which shows that the pipes supplied by the opposite party is of inferior quality. This shows that the deficiency of services of opposite party.

8.             The Counsel for the opposite party contended that one Dharamraj came to the shop for estimate of submersible pumps and pipes he has given only estimate on 23.06.2013 to one Dharamraj. Counsel for the opposite party again contended that opposite party Malkiat Singh came to the shop on 23.06.2014 for submersible motor and pumps set and his receipt of i.e Ex.C-3 he has given two years guarantee regarding submersible Motors and Pump set. If any problem in motor or pump set then he can replace the Motor and submersible pump set.

9.             He has considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file.

10.            There are no disputes that the complainant is Consumer of opposite party and complainant had purchased submersible Motor and pump set from the opposite party on 23.06.2014 for amount of Rs. 32,500/-. But there are no bills of pipes which are defective. The complainant has not produced any documents regarding the purchase of pipes from the opposite party. Ex.C-1 is only estimate which is in the name of Dharamraj. So, on perusal of the file it is clear that there is no deficiency in services on the part of opposite party.

11.            Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum:                                                   Dt.:30.08.2019.  

                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                    (Neelam Kashyap)                                                                         

                                                                                                                          President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)                          

     Member                             Member.