THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 227 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 11.08.2015.
Date of Decision: -22.06.2016.
Jaibir son of Shri Dharam Singh, caste Jat, resident of village Bidhwan, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Suresh Pipes Private Ltd. (An ISO 9001; 2008 Certified company), Rajgarh Road, Choudharyvas, Hisar.
- Ananda Hisar TM ISI IS 4985 IS : 9537, Suresh Pipes Private Ltd. (An ISO 9001 : 2008 (Certified copy).
…...OPs.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 & 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Shri Azad Singh, brother of complainant.
Sh. Rohan Prasad on behalf of Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased plastic Pipes from OPs. It is alleged that he has received the cost of the pipes from the OPs against the pipes which were returned by him to the OPs. He submitted that the Ops are liable to pay compensation to him. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony, and financial losses. 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, OP has filed written statement alleging therein that He submitted that the pipes supplied by the OP to the complainant were of good quality and there is no guarantee for the breakage of the pipes. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless. He further submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that he has received the cost of the pipes from the OP. He submitted that there is no manufacturing defects in the pipes. Hence, in view of the circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4.
4. On the other hand the opposite party has not produced any document.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties.
6. Brother of the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He admitted that he has received the cost of the pipes from the OP against the pipes which were returned by him to the OP. He submitted that the Ops are liable to pay compensation to him.
7. The representative on behalf of the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the pipes supplied by the OP to the complainant were of good quality and there is no guarantee for the breakage of the pipes. The complaint of the complainant is false and baseless. He further submitted that the complainant himself has admitted that he has received the cost of the pipes from the OP. There is no manufacturing defects in the pipes.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. No cogent evidence has been adduced by the complainant in support of his pleading to claim compensation. Admittedly, the cost of the pipes has already been received by the complainant. The expenses for the bore claimed by the complainant is not tenable, because the complainant could have used the bore for the installation and fixing of the pipes, as per his sweet will. We do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Dated:-22.06.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi),
Member.
