DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 247 of 10-09-2008<br /> Decided on : 03-08-2009 <br /> <br /> Gurjit Singh S/o Sh. Dal Singh Mann, R/o Village Balianwali District Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Singla Traders, Rampura Road, near Gas agency, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its owner/partner/proprietor<br /> 2.Trishakti Polyvin Pvt. Ltd., V. Pandwala the. Derabassi, District Mohali having its Head Office House No. 441, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh through its M.D./Prop.<br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Talib Hussain, Advocate, counsel for the complainant <br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 1.<br /> Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the allegations against the opposite parties that he approached the Punjab State Electricity Board (here-in-after referred to as 'Board') for a kundi connection of his tubewell for irrigation purposes and he was allowed the same and asked to submit test report. He purchased PVC pipes, 7.5 BHP electric motor and other material required for installation and got installed the same. He deposited an amount of Rs. 11,250/- and also submitted test report with the Board and accordingly kundi connection was released to him. The PVC pipes were purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 who is authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2, against cash payment vide bill No. 230 dated 28-06-07. After release of connection when he started his tubewell, immediately thereafter PVC pipes manufactured by opposite party No. 2 and sold to him by opposite party No. 1 started leaking and later on they bursted resultantly his electric connection became useless. He approached opposite party No. 1 and informed regarding defective pipes, but he did not listen to his grievance and therefore, he had to file the present complaint after serving a legal notice in writing. He raised main allegation against the opposite parties that opposite party No. 1 who is authorised dealer of opposite party No. 2 at the time of sale of PVC pipes alongwith other material required for installation of tubewell connection, assured him that pipes are fit for installation of tubewell connection and are free from any latent or patent defect but later on, these pipes could not work properly and therefore, he had suffered loss in his agriculture produced as well as suffered mental tension, agony and inconvenience. He has sought replacement of the PVC pipes or return of the price of the same and also payment of adequate compensation for mental tension etc., alongwith litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Both the opposite parties have contested the claim of the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 raised objections regarding non-joinder of necessary parties; non-compliance of provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act; concealment of material facts; complainant is not consumer; allegations in the complaint are false, frivolous and baseless and it be dismissed.<br /> On merits, opposite party No. 1 asserted that at the time of sale of PVC pipes, the complainant was told about different type of pipes having different qualities and prices and it was for the complainant to purchase the appropriate type of pipe as per his purchasing power and his requirements as advised by the expert, who was to instal the tubewell connection and as per the quality of land where the same was to be installed. The complainant purchased the pipes after fully satisfying about the quality of the same. All the other alleged facts are denied.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply raising inter-alia objections regarding locus standi and cause of action; suppression of material facts; complainant is not consumer; there is no privity of contract between opposite party No. 1 & 2 as the sale of PVC pipes were principal to principal basis; this forum has no jurisdiction as opposite party No. 2 has its registered office outside the jurisdiction of Bathinda; intricate questions of law and facts are involved, therefore the jurisdiction lies with the civil court; Board is a necessary party who has not been arrayed in this complaint and the complainant has intentionally filed this false and vexatious complaint.<br /> On merits, all the facts as taken up in the preliminary objections are reiterated and the facts alleged in the complaint by the complainant are not admitted as correct. It is pleaded that the complainant has not suffered any loss which can be indemnified in any manner by opposite party No. 2. The complainant has stated totally incorrect facts. The PVC pipes are sold without any warranty or guarantee and thus, the question of alleged unfair trade practice does not arise. The opposite party No. 2 is running its unit located at Village Pandwala, Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> 4. Both the parties in order to prove their respective contentions have led respective evidence. <br /> 5. The complainant Sh. Gurjit Singh has filed his affidavit Ex. C-7 and the affidavits of S/Sh. Tehal Singh, Bhura Singh, Randhir Singh, and Rajwinder Singh Ex. C-3 to Ex. C-6 respectively, photocopy of bill Ex. C-1, photocopy of receipt dated 09-07-07 Ex. C-2, photocopy of Khasra Girdwari for the year 2008 Ex. C-8 and photographs Ex. C-9 to Ex. C-16.<br /> 6. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 produced on record affidavit of Sh. Balbir Krishan Garg Ex. R-1 and photocopy of ISI specification Ex. R-2 and opposite party No. 1 produced on record two affidavits of Sh. Subhash Kumar, its Partner, photocopies of Tax Invoice cum challan Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-7 and photocopies of retail invoices Ex. R-8 to Ex. R-12.<br /> 7. We have gone through the entire pleadings of the parties as well as taken into consideration the material brought on record to prove respective assertions.<br /> 8. It appears from the record that complainant purchased 9 PVC pipes alongwith 5 other articles vide invoice dated 28-06-07 Ex. C-1. Admittedly these articles were purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1. It is also an admitted fact that opposite party No. 2 is the manufacturer of PVC pipes which were sold by opposite party No. 1 to the complainant. There is no latent or patent defect pointed out by the complainant in the PVC pipes so as to make the manufacturer liable to indemnify the complainant for any loss he has suffered. However, it appears from the perusal of the affidavit of the complainant as well as Invoice Ex. C-1 that he purchased the entire material for installation of a tubewell electric connection (kundi connection) from opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 1 was aware of the fact that PVC pipes supplied by him to the complainant will be used by him for installation of tubewell connection. The complainant being consumer is totally unaware of the fact as to whether the PVC pipes offered to him for being used in an installation of tubewell are technically or materially upto the mark or not rather as per the statement of the complainant at the time of purchase of the PVC Pipes, opposite party No. 1 assured him about the quality. Though the plumber who installed the tubewell connection told the complainant at the time of installation that the pipes are not fit for the purposes but since he was assured about the quality by opposite party No. 1 , therefore he was sure that the PVC pipes will work properly and he is not likely to suffer any loss on account of quality of the same. The complainant do purchased the entire material to be used for installation of tubewell connection alongwith 7.5 BHP electric motor from opposite party No. 1 on cash payment and immediately after installation, the PVC pipes started leaking and also bursted as per affidavits of S/Sh. Bhura Singh, Randhir Singh and Rajwinder Singh Ex. C-4 to Ex. C-6 respectively. The tubwell connection stopped working due to non-availability of the water and the complainant suffered loss to his crop. Sh. Rajwinder Singh, plumber in his affidavit Ex. C-6 has clearly stated that at the time of installation of tubewell, he informed the complainant that the pipes are not fit for the installation of tubwell but the complainant insisted on him to install the same by saying the the shop keeper from whom the pipes have been purchased has given full guarantee regarding the pipes/material purchased from his shop. This fact is also stated by Sh. Gurjit Singh, complainant in his own affidavit Ex. C-7. If the complainant would have been informed properly about the quality of PVC pipes, there would have been no reason for him to purchase the same for installation of tubewell connection. The stand taken by opposite party No. 1 that at the time of sale of the pipes complainant was told about different type of pipes having different quality and prices and it was for the complainant to purchase the appropriate type of pipe as per his purchasing power and his requirements as advised by the expert who was to install the tubewell connection and as per the quality of land where the same to be installed and complainant purchased the pipes after fully satisfying about the quality of the same, appears to be without any base. The complainant purchased not only pipes from opposite party No. 1 but also other material such as 7.5 BHP motor etc., as detailed in Invoice Ex. C-1 and if the opposite party No. 1 would have informed the complainant about quality and capacity of PVC pipes, definitely there would have been no reason for the complainant to purchase the said PVC pipes. The consumer being an illiterate agriculturist is not expected to know the quality of the PVC pipes. Opposite party No. 1 who is authorised dealer and dealing with the various objects/articles which are being used for installation of tubewell connection is well conversant with the PVC pipes. Selling the PVC pipes to the complainant which costs more than Rs. 30,000/- by suppressing the real facts about their quality and utility, is not only unfair trade practice but also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1.<br /> 9. The order of this Forum in CC No. 214 of 14-08-2008 decided on 21-04-2008 titled as Major Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar, Managing partner of M/s. Ajay Boring Company and another relied upon by the counsel for the opposite parties is based on totally different reasonings than the facts pleaded before us.<br /> 10. The complainant has produced copy of Khasra Girdwari Ex. C-8 and it appears that the complainant on account of non-working of his tubewell properly has definitely suffered loss in his agricultural produce. The complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 for exchange of the defective pipes but no heed was paid to his request. Resultantntly, the tubewell connection remained out of order and it did not function more than a one year period. During this period, in addition to the loss in crops, he has definitely undergone mental tension, agony, sufferings, harassment and inconvenience. The complainant had to knock the door of this Forum for redressal of his grievances for which he has spent some amount and accordingly he is entitled for indemnification to that extent as well.<br /> 11. In the result, the complaint is accepted against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the cost of PVC pipes i.e. Rs. 30,375/- alongwith interest @9% to the complainant from 28-06-2007 till payment and also pay to him Rs. 5,000/- being loss in his crops, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 03-08-2009 <br /> <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul)<br /> Member <br />