COMMON O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.

          The matter involved in the above complaints are the same and the opposite parties are the same,  we are disposing them off by this common order.

2. Cases of the complainants are as follows:-

Complainants are the beneficiaries of Biogas Plants distributed by the 3^rd opposite party under People’s Planning Programme for the year 2008-2009.  The 1^st opposite party erected the biogas plants at the premises of the complainants.  The price of the plants of the  complainants in CC.173/2010, 177/2010 and 183/2010 was Rs.8500/-.  Out of the above amount the complainants contributed Rs.6400/- each and a subsidy of Rs.2100/- each was paid by the 3rd opposite party.  The price of the plants of the complainants in CC.174/2010, 175/2010, 176/2010 was Rs.4500/- each.  Out of which the complainants paid Rs.3000/- each and a subsidy of Rs.1500/- was paid by the 3^rd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1st opposite party offered to provide cooking  gas continuously for 1 ½  hours with out break through the plant.  But they are getting only 10 to 12 minutes  gas supply instead.  Since they have  not received justice from the  opposite parties.  They are before us with the above complaints.

3. Version of the 1^st opposite party.

 As per the agreement dated 02.03.2009 between the 1^st OP and the 3^rd OP, the 1^st OP erected the potable biogas plants at the residence of the complainants and taught them the operation of the plants.  There is no agreement between the 1^st opposite party and the complainants and so the complainants are not entitled to get any relief from the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party has not assured the volume of gas that could be produced from the plants.  The 1^st opposite party never offered 1^1/2 hours usage of gas from the plants.  The volume of gas  would depend on the quantity and nature of raw materials that is used in the plant.  These complaints were filed with the connivance  of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to harass the 1^st opposite party.  1^st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint. 

4. Defense of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

The 3^rd opposite party selected the beneficiaries of bio-gas plants through the 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is a government approved agency for implementing the bio-gas plant project.  An agreement has been executed between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to carry out the work.  Thereafter the 1^st opposite party implemented the project by erecting the plants.  The 1^st opposite party has provided one year warranty for the plant and 5 years service warranty.  On receipt of complaints from the complainants with regard to the non-functioning of the plants the 3^rd opposite party caused to issue a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party, but there was no response.  The  complainants have no cause of action against the 2^nd and  3^rd opposite parties.

5.  Neither oral nor documentary  evidence was adduced by the complainants.  Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  Exts. B6 to B10 were marked on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Heard the complainants who appeared in parties-in-person and the learned counsel for the opposite parties.

6. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get any relief from this Forum.

7. The following points were not disputed by the parties.

i. The complainants are the beneficiaries of bio-gas plants under Peoples Planning Programme 2008-2009  under the auspices of the 3^rd opposite party.

ii. The total cost per plant of the complainants in CC 173/2010, 177/2010 and 183/2010 is Rs. 8,500/- each out of which the complainants paid Rs. 6,500/- each as their contribution and the 3^rd opposite party paid the balance amount.  

iii. The total price per plant of the complainants in CC 174/2010, 175/2010 and 176/2010 is Rs. 4,500/- each, out of which the complainants   paid Rs. 3,000/- each as their contribution and the 3^rd opposite party paid the balance amount to the 1^st opposite party.

iv. The 1^st opposite party is an approved agency for installation of bio-gas plants evidenced by Ext. B1 Government order.

v. The 1^st opposite party provided one year guarantee and 5 years service warranty for the plants evident from Ext. B2.

vi. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties entered into Ext. B3 agreement dated 02-03-2009 for the erection of 17 plants including the plants of the complainants.

vii. The 2^nd opposite party  caused Ext. B4 notice dated 23-06-2009 to the 1^st opposite party demanding to carry out the rectification of defects to which the 1^st3 opposite party sent reply dated 08-07-2009.

viii. The specifications of the bio-gas plant as per Ext. B8 guidelines is as follows:

“Specifications

1.    Treatment capacity -2.5 kg of solid waste per day

2.    Volume of digester including gas holder -0.50m³

3.    Plastic tank with circular shape as digester and gas holder

4.    Inlet device with PVC pipe of diameter 110 mm

5.    Inlet chamber with a plastic mug having circular shape and  with a lid.

6.    Outlet devise with PVC pipe of 63mm diameter.

7.    A plastic can of 10 liter capacity to be used for collecting slurry/effluent for safe disposal. If toilet waste is also treated in biogas plant to be treated in a septic tank soak pit arrangement.

8.    Rubber hose of 25 mm 9 (3/4 inch) diameter for conveyance of biogas for use with a maximum length of

   10 m

9.maximum length of 10 m

10.Stove with single burner

11.Control valve for regulating gas.

“Specifications

1.    Treatment capacity -7.5 kg of solid waste per day

2.    Volume of digester -1m³

3.    Digester with cement concrete/Ferro cement

4.    Gas holder dome with Fiber Reinforced plastic (FRP)

5.    Central support of GI pipe of 40 mm (medium class), fixed to base concrete/fixed to central beam

6.    Inlet device with PVC pipe of diameter 110 mm

7.    Inlet chamber with cement concrete/ferro cement, having circular shape of 50 cm diameter and with a lid.

8.    Outlet devise with PVC pipe of 63mm diameter.

9.    A plastic can of 10 liter capacity to be used for collecting slurry/effluent for safe disposal. If toilet waste is also treated in biogas plant to be treated in a septic tank soak pit arrangement.

10.           Rubber hose of 25 mm 9 (3/4 inch) diameter for conveyance of biogas for use with a maximum length of

   10 m

11.           Stove with single burner

12.           Control valve for regulating gas

ix. The volume of digester of the plant in CC 174/2010, 175/2010 and  176/2010 is 0.5m³  and that of the other cases is IM³

          x. The 1^st opposite party offered bio-gas for 75 minutes and 90 minutes per day for 0.5m³  and 1M³  plants respectively evident from  Ext. B2 offer letter.

          8. During evidence Mr. James Joseph was appointed as the expert commissioner.  He filed his report and his inference with regard to the bio gas plants of the complainants is stated below

          INFERENCE:-

^1.       Total  Volume of Biogas Plant supplied by The First Respondent is less.  Instead of 1M³  the actual volume is only 9.78M^3.

2.    Similarly, actual volume of 0.5 M³     Biogas plant is only 0.39M³

3.    Design parameters of all the 6 Biogas Plants inspected are all standard, except that of the volume.

4.    Biogas Plant with 0.78 M³  Volume is good enough to charge only upto 4.0 Kgs of Biodegradable waste (Cow dung, Food waste etc) daily with minimum of 3 times water by volume. This plant can generate Biogas to burn for maximum of 30minutes per day in 2 or 3 stretches.

5.    Similarly Biogas plantswith 0.39M³   volume is good enough to charge only up to  2.0kgs of biodegradable waste (cow dung, food waste etc.) daily with minimum of 3 times water by volume.    This plant can generate biogas to burn for maximum of 15     minutes per day in 2 or 3 stretches.

6.    In all the 6 places I inspected, it is further learn that the volume of cow dung, kitchen waste, generator are much more than the capacity of biogas were the plant installed wherein the cow dung or other biodegradable waste generated on a daily basis could not be fully utilized for the generation of biogas. Therefore it appears that all the petitioners only wanted to get the subsidy given by the government and not the effective  disposal of their wastes. 

7.    I suggest that a biogas plant of 6 to 8M³ biogas holding volume (i.e. total biogas plant volume comes to about 3.5 times the gas volumes.) is required for the effective disposal of waste of each petitioner.

8.    Therefore it can be concluded that if the petitioners had opted/installed biogas plants of higher capacity, they would have obtained the out put of biogas as mentioned in their complaints.

9.    I leave matter therefore proper inferences to be drawn by this Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum”.

          9. Neither parties filed objection to the report of the expert commissioner.  Evidently the volume of the bio gas plants erected by the 1^st opposite party pertaining to the complainants in CC173/2010, CC 177/2010 and CC 185/2010 are short by 0.22 M³  and that of the complainants in CC 174/2010, CC 175/2010 and CC 176/2010 are short by 0.11m³.  No explanation is forthcoming on the part of the 1^st opposite party as to the above deficiency.  Admittedly the 1^st opposite party has  undertaken the volume of bio gas that can be produced from the plants. However they should have  proved that considerable quantity of bio-gas could be produced and the same can be used for cooking purposes, in which they failed.  Pertinently the argument of the  1^st opposite party is that the plant is specifically meant for disposal of solid  wastes and particularly not for generating cooking gas.  The expert commissioner in his report categorically stated that the 0.78 m³     plant can produce bio-gas to burn for maximum of 30 minutes per day in 2 or 3 stenches and   the 0.39 m³     plant can produce bio-gas to burn for maximum of 15 minutes per day in 2 or 3 stenches.   The above observation of the commissioner has not been controverted by the  1st opposite party. In effect the  complainants could not use the plant for cooking purposes as offered by the 1^st opposite party.  Even prior to the institution of the complaints in this Forum  at the instance of the complainants the 2^nd opposite party caused Ext. B4 notice dated 23-06-2009 to the 1^st opposite party demanding to rectify the defects of plants to which they sent a reply denying their liability to rectify the defects.  The above conduct of the 1st opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service especially since they had provided one year guarantee and thereafter 5 years service warranty for the plants as per Ext. B2 letter dated 20-01-2009  wherein they failed in their reply evident from Ext. B4.

          10. The prayer in their complaints is that the matter be resolved squarely.  Notably no specific prayer is raised.  Undisputedly having appeared in person are consumers Ipso facto.    This Forum is of the considered opinion that the matter can be settled   either by ordering the 1^st opposite party    to rectify the defects of the plants as mentioned in the specifications in Ext. B8 or   return the contributions of the complainants. 

          11.   Each of the complaints are allowed to the extend mentioned as follows:

          i. The 1^st opposite party shall either provide a bio-gas plant as per the specifications in Ext. B2 and B8 to the complainants in  CC173/2010, CC 177/2010 and CC 185/2010 or return their contributions with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment  to the complainants as per the choice of the 1^st opposite party.   In either of the event the complainants shall return the bio-gas plant to the 1^st opposite party which shall be collected by the 1^st opposite party at their expenses simultaneously.

          ii. The 1^st opposite party shall either provide a bio-gas plant as per the specifications in Exts. B2and B8 to the complainants in CC 174/2010, 175/2010 and 176/2010 or return their contribution with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment as per the choice  of the 1^st opposite party. In either of the event the complainants shall return the bio-gas plant to the 1^st opposite party simultaneously which shall be collected by the 1^st opposite party at their expense.                                                                                                                               

          The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month   from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

          Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th  day of  September 2011.