THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 114 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 24.02.2011.
Date of Decision: -08.10.2015.
Sher Singh son of Chuni Ram, resident of Village Mandholi Khurd, Tehsil Siwani and District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Rungta Irrigation Ltd., through Regional Manager, having its regional office at Circular Road, near Old Bus Stand, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
- Runta Irrigation Ltd., through its authorized signatory head office 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 Rakesh Nehra, 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 150 PVC Pipes amounting to Rs. 80,000/- (Rupees Eighty one thousand only) i.e. Rs. 540 per pipe bearing TV No. 10 dated 14.05.2010 from OP no. 1. The complainant alleged that OP No.1 told that the PVC Pipes sold by him was superior quality and are fully guaranteed in case of any defect. The complainant got fitted the pipes in the earth with the tub well motor. It is further alleged that when the complainant switched on the tube well motor to irrigate his field, the under ground pipe line failed to bear the pressure of water and bifurcate in to parts at many places. It is further alleged that the matter was approached to OP no. 1, who assured to him that the defective pipes were to be replaced within a short period but to no avail. After that a legal notice was served upon the Ops on dated 08.10.2010, 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 complainant has not placed on record the report of any laboratory. It is submitted that the complainant himself fitted the pipes in the fields and not fitted from the Company Expert Mechanic. It is submitted that the leakage in the joints due to pressure of water. It is further submitted that there is no manufacturing defect and no expert report has been placed on the file. 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 C4 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 14.05.2010 were of inferior quality and after fitting of the same under ground, the pipes could not bear the pressure of water and bifurcate in to parts at many places. A legal notice was also issued on 08.10.2010 to the Ops on behalf of the complainant through his advocate regarding the defects in the pipes.
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 14.05.2010 Annexure C4 for Rs. 81,000/-. According to the contents of the complaint, after the fitting of the pipes under ground, the complainant switched on the tube well to irrigate his fields through the said pipes fitted under ground, the pipe line failed to bear the pressure of water and bifurcate in to parts at many places. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 08.10.2010 to the Ops, but no response was received on behalf of the Ops. 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 that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- be awarded to the complainant. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Ops and Ops are directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- 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
