THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 300 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 20.07.2011.
Date of Decision: -08.10.2015.
Chandgi Ram son of Shri Ram Saroop, resident of village Mundhal Khurd, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Rungta Irrigation Ltd., Opposite Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
- Runta Irrigation Ltd., 101, Pragati Tower, 26, Rajendra Place, New Delhi.
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Balbir Mehta, Advocate for complainant
Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased 130 nos. of PVC pipes of dia 160 mmX 2.5 Kg 6 meter long at the rate of Rs. 1026/- each vide delivery challan no. 12 dated 16.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,33,280/- and he further purchased 227 nos. of PVC pipes of dia 160 mm X 2.5 kg 6 meter long at the rate of Rs. 1026/- each vide delivery challan no. 14 dated 21.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 2,32,902/- from OP no. 1. The complainant further alleged that the officials of OP No.1 told that the PVC Pipes sold by him was superior quality and capable to give long life. The complainant got fitted the pipes in the earth by engaging labourers after spending Rs. 70,000/- and also spend Rs. 18,000/- on making joint of these pipes. It is further alleged that after 15 days of its use, the pipes have shrunk or cracked or even some of the joints of the pipes was broken. It is further alleged that the matter was approached to OP no. 1, who deputed a mechanic namely, Pyare Lal who tried his best to rectify the defect but failed to do so. It is further alleged that OP no. 1 assured him that they will take up the matter with OP no. 2 but OP no. 1 was refused to refund the amount of Rs. 3,66,182/- 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, Ops have filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not fitted the Pipes from the Company Expert Mechanic and joints were not filled with chemicals. It is submitted that the spot was inspected by Company Mechanic and it was found that some leakage in the joints due to pressure of water. It is further submitted that the no warranty of the non ISI quality was given to the complainant. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 to Annexure C5 and closed the evidence.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record supporting affidavit. Written arguments on behalf of counsel for OPs filed.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the pipes purchased by the complainant from the Ops vide bill dated 16.05.2010 and 21.05.2010 were of inferior quality and after laying the pipes in the earth for irrigation, after 15 days of its use, the complainant observed the leakage of water at different places in the fields.
7. Learned counsel for Opposite Parties reiterated the contents of his reply. He submitted that the pipes sold by the Ops to the complainant were of good quality. The complainant has not got fitted the pipes from the company’s expert Mechanic and the pipes were not fitted by the complainant properly and the joints were not connected with the chemicals. He further submitted that no test report has been produced by the complainant from the laboratory regarding the defect in the pipes, as alleged by him. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:
I Merk Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Hubli Diagnostics Medicate and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2010 CPJ 274 (NC).
II Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. P. Ayyavar Reddy & another 2012 CPJ 638 (NC).
III Classic Automobiles Vs. Lila Nand Mishra & another 2004 CPJ 235 (NC)
8. Admittedly, there is no test report from the appropriate laboratory regarding the quality of the pipes. The pipes were purchased by the complainant from the Ops vide bill dated 16.05.2010 Annexure C1 and bill dated 21.05.2010 Annexure C-2. According to the contents of the complaint, after laying the pipes in the earth, the complainant found that there was leakage in the pipes at different places in the fields and the complainant found that the pipes have shrunk or cracked and the joints of the pipes were broken. As per the provision of Section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant should have got tested the pipes from the appropriate laboratory for the defect as alleged by him, but he has not done so. The said pipes are still with the complainant. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the complainant should be compensated and taking into account every aspect of the case, it would be adequate & proper that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded to the complainant. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Ops and Ops are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. This order be complied with by OPs within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise the Ops shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of passing of this order till the date of payment of the awarded amount. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-08.10.2015.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member
