Haryana

StateCommission

A/653/2016

JAIBIR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURESH PIPES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

09 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.           653 of 2016

Date of Institution:18.07.2016      

Date of Decision: 09.08.2016

 

Jaibir son of Sh. Dharam Singh, caste Jat, resident of Village Bidhwan, Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1. Suresh Pipes Private Limited, (An ISO 9001; 2008 Certified Company), Rajgarh Road, Choudharyvyas, Hisar.
2. Ananda Hisar, TM IS 4985 IS: 9537, Suresh Pipes Private Limited, (An ISO 9001:2008 (Certified Copy).

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM              Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

                                                                                      

Present:              Azad Singh, brother of Jaibir-appellant in person.

                            

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH, J (ORAL)

 

          This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated June 22^nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short, ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was dismissed.

2.      Jaibir Singh-complainant purchased pipes from the opposite parties.  The pipes were found to be defective.  The complainant returned the pipes to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties refunded the price of the pipes to the complainant.  The complainant asked the opposite parties to pay compensation for the defective pipes supplied to him.  The opposite parties did not accede to the request of the complainant.  The complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

3.      The opposite parties, in their written version, pleaded that the pipes supplied to the complainant were of good quality.  There was no guarantee for the breakage of pipes.  The complainant himself admitted that he has received the cost of pipes from them.  There was no manufacturing defects in the pipes.

4.      It is the case of the complainant that the defective pipes were returned by him to the opposite parties and the opposite parties refunded the price of the pipes to him.  The complainant has come up with the grievance that he should also be awarded compensation.  Since the defective pipes were returned by the complainant to the opposite parties and price thereof paid to him, no case for granting compensation to the complainant is made out.  The impugned order passed by the District Forum is perfectly right and requires no interference.  The appeal is dismissed.  

 

09.08.2016 (Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member (B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President

UK