Haryana

StateCommission

A/221/2015

SUPREME IDUSTRIES LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYA NARAIN KAUSHIK - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.ADHLAKHA

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA.

 

                                                First Appeal No.221 of 2015

                                                   Date of Institution: 26.02.2015 and 09.03.2015

                             Date of Decision: 22.11.2016

 

1. The Supreme Industries Limited, 304 Raja House 30-31, Nehru Place, New Delhi through its authorized person.
2. M/s Prem Dev- Vinod Kumar, Old Mandi Road, Hisar through its proprietor.

…..Appellants

                                      VERSUS

Satya Narain Kaushik s/o Shri Ram Chander,R/o H.No.1, New Rishi Nagar, Hisar (Haryana).

     …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                   Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                   

For the parties:  Mr.D.S.Adlakha, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

Mr.Sandeep Thakan, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.BISHNOI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

          It was alleged by complainant that he purchased water pipes measuring 1000 feet from opposite party (O.P.) No.2 in the year 2006 and 2008.  After fitting leakage was found at 2-3 places. He spent Rs.50,000/- on breaking the wall and pipe.  After some days leakage started in the entire house due to fault in the pipes.  It was told by contractor that he was to spent Rs.3,27,000/- for new fitting. Costs of new pipes was  told as Rs.44356/- by another  shop keeper and plumber told about charges to the extent of Rs.18,000/-. The O.Ps. were requested to pay that amount, but to no use.

2.      O.ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that there was no defect in the pipes.  There was no fault in the pipes and leakage could be due to lack of proper fitting.  There was no manufacturing defect in the pipes. So they were not liable to pay any compensation.  Objections about accruing cause of action, estopple, jurisdiction, concealing true facts, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short “District Forum”)  allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 05.11.2014 and directed as under:-

“Resultantly, this complaint is hereby allowed, with a direction to the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.3,89,356/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 16.12.2008, till payment.  Complainant is also hereby awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for his harassment, mental agony etc. and litigation expenses of Rs.5500/- against the opposite parties.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      There is no evidence on the file showing that there was any manufacturing defect in the pipes. Complainant has not produced any expert to prove manufacturing defect. As per O.Ps.,  the pipes were not fitted properly and that is why there could be leakage.  Learned District  Forum has granted compensation keeping in view the letter dated 08.07.2008 Annexure A-15 written by O.P.No.1  wherein supply of fresh pipes with test certified were offered. As per this letter it cannot be presumed that O.ps. admitted their fault.  It is specifically mentioned therein that pipes were as per standard and were dispatched after complete testing. They only offered replacement as goodwill gesture.  So it cannot be opined that there was manufacturing defect in the pipes.   Report of any Masson cannot be considered as an expert opinion.  Contractor etc. have only reported about the cost of replacement etc. and not about manufacturing defect.  Learned District Forum fell in error while coming to conclusion that as per letter Annexure A-5 the O.Ps. are liable to pay the compensation.  Learned District forum wrongly granted the compensation when there was no report about manufacturing defect. Hence impugned order dated 05.11.2014 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

 

November 22nd, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.