Date of Filing : 10.10.2011
Date of Order : 30.06.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 30th JUNE 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
CC No. 204 / 2011
Sri. N.S. Krishnareddy, S/o. Sonnappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o: Nayindrahalli Village, Hirekattigenahalli Post,
Peramachanahalli Village Panchayat,
Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. Asst. Director of Sericulture,
Office of the Asst. Director of Sericulture,
Booramakalahalli Farm, Oolavadi Post,
Chinthamani Taluk.
2. Sericulture Extension Officer,
Technical Service Centre, Kaiwara Grama & Post,
Chinthamani Taluk.
3. Vasavi Hardware,
Main Road / Mutt Road,
Kaiwara – 563 128.
Chintamani Taluk.
(By Sri. C.B. Jayarama, Adv. For OP3)
4. Champion Pipe Industries,
Factory: No. 18/2, Deepanjali Nagar, Mysore Road,
Bangalore – 560 029.
Shop: No. 167/2, Mariswamappa Line,
S.J.P. road Cross,
Bangalore – 560 002. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complaint u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the Ops to pay suitable compensation and also replace the equipment completely are necessary:-
Under the scheme of the Government “Catalytic Drip Irrigation”, father of the Complainant by name Sonnappa, S/o. Late Narayanappa for the year 2008-09 has been selected as beneficiary and Drip Irrigation Equipment was purchased from OP3 to which OP4 raised a Bill for Rs.62,744/-. Even guarantee letter was issued by OP4 in favour of the Complainant. This equipment has got 3 years warranty. Even beneficiaries were trained in this matter. Complainant is raising Silk and earning Rupees Five to Six Lakhs a year. On 30.12.2009 Complainant approached OP3 and stated that the equipments are not giving the result and it is defective as the Pipes are cut and requested them to rectify & replace the materials. OP3 has sought the Bill to verify and said that guarantee is only for one year and they cannot do anything. Complainant obtained the documents from the concerned Authorities under RTI Act. Hence, on 11.06.2011, 13.06.2011, 11.07.2011, 14.07.2011, 15.07.2011 Complainant has written to the Ops in this regard. Complainant has also lodged a Complaint with the helpline of Government Sericulture Department on 11.07.2011. On 21.09.2011, Complainant wrote to OP1 and also to the Sericulture Department. On 03.09.2011, concerned Department has written letter stating that concerned equipments were supplied by OP4 and it has to be considered appropriately. Hence, the Complaint.
2(a) In brief the version of Ops 1 & 2 are:-
Ops had been providing financial assistance to the beneficiaries as recommended by the Government after verifying the formalities. The father of the Complainant has installed Drip Irrigation to his land and installation was done through OP4 and has applied for financial assistance and as per the records dtd. 19.02.2009 / 25.02.2009, it is clear that Drip Irrigation was working satisfactorily. The father of the Complainant chose OP4 voluntarily and these Ops are not connected with it. As per the agreement between the OP4 and the Deputy Commissioner of Sericulture, the guarantee is for 2 years. Contrary to that OP4 has guaranteed for 3 years. In spite of this, Ops have written to OP4 to make good the loss if any. OP4 has closed its industry and its whereabouts are not known. OP4 cannot issue guarantee for 3 years against the terms of the contract.
(b) In brief the version of OP3 are:-
Complainant has not purchased any Drip Irrigation equipment from OP3 nor paid any amount to him. According to the Complainant himself, it is the father of the Complainant who purchased the Drip Irrigation Equipments from OP4 and his father has been trained. Even father of the Complainant has not authorized the Complainant to file this Complaint. All the allegations to the contrary are denied. Complainant never approached OP3 nor OP3 sought documents.
(c) In this case OP4 though served with notice having been published in “Hosa Digantha Daily” on 09.04.2012 has remained absent throughout proceedings.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties had filed their respective Affidavits. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
POINTS
(A) Whether the Complaint as brought by the Complainant is maintainable?
(B) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(C) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) to (C) - As per detailed Order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Point Nos. A to B - In this case, it is established that under “Catalytic Drip Irrigation Scheme”, Sonnegowda, father of the Complainant was supplied with Drip Irrigation Equipments on 23.12.2008 and the amount was paid as subsidy and the father of the Complainant had paid certain amount to OP4 and the work was completed on 23.12.208 by the OP4. The father of the Complainant had been given appropriate training in this regard and he has successfully completed the training and for the equipments supplied he has issued certificate stating that it is working in order.
7. According to the agreement between the Government and OP4, the warranty is only for 2 years and it cannot be more than 2 years. It appears only under the Scheme, the Drip Irrigation Equipments were given to the father of the Complainant by OP4 and the amount is paid by the Government or by the father of the Complainant as the case may be. Beyond 2 years, OP4 cannot give guarantee.
8. The case of the Complainant is that in 2011 he found certain portion of the Equipment is broken, as such he has lodged a complaint to the authorities and the authorities directed the OP4 to rectify, but it is not done. How the OP3 is connected to this is not at all whispered and no document is produced by the Complainant to show that OP3 is in any way responsible for this Drip Irrigation Equipments or its installation.
9. Even, how the Ops 1 & 2 are responsible for this. There is no privity of contract between the Ops 1 & 2 on one side and the Complainant on the other side. If the materials were given by the OP4 that too to the father of the Complainant, it is for the Complainant’s father who can adjudicate the matter before the appropriate Forum or Court against OP4 if need be and not the Complainant. In this case, Complaint has been filed by the Complainant on 10.10.2011. Complainant never stated that he is power of attorney holder of his father or he has not stated that his father had given authorization to file this Complaint against any of the Ops. Even Vakalath is executed in favour of the Advocate for the Complainant is by the Complainant and not by his father and not by the complainant as power of attorney holder of his father. Even letter addressed to the Government Department is by the Complainant and not by his father. Hence, Complaint as brought is not maintainable as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the OP3.
10. Complainant in none of the lines in the Complaint has stated that he has been authorized by his father to file this Complaint or he has filed the complaint on behalf of his father, there is no such thing. But, Complainant has produced the alleged Power of Attorney purport to have been executed by his father in his favour on 03.02.2012. In this, it is stated that land in question is belonging to the father of the Complainant and it is in his possession and regarding Drip Irrigation, as per the consent of his father, Complainant has filed this Complaint. If that were be so, naturally this Complaint would have been filed by the father of the Complaint and it might have been stated by the Complainant that with the permission of his father he has filed the complaint on behalf of his father. But, this Complaint is not filed in the name of the father of the Complainant, but it is filed in the name of the Complainant himself stating he is the owner of the land in question and he has purchased the Equipments etc. All these things go to show that Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The Power of Attorney is subsequent to filing of the Complaint. Hence, this is invalid. If the Complainant or his father has any right, they can approach the Forum or Court as the case may be with fresh complaint for which this order will not come in the way.
11. Further, in this case, the entire grievance is against OP4 had supplied the Drip Irrigation Equipment to the father of the Complainant. According to Ops 1 & 2, warranty cannot be given more than 2 years. But, OP4 has issued warranty for 3 years. Hence, regarding warranty Complainant or his father has to approach Civil Court against OP4 for which this order will not come in the way. As the warranty is against the terms of the contract, it is not valid and that cannot be decided before this Forum which has only summary jurisdiction.
12. Even otherwise Ops 1 & 2 have clearly stated and sworn to that “unfortunately OP4 has closed his industry and his whereabouts are not known”. When that is a case, how can any order be passed against the person who is not at all there. Merely taking notice against OP4 in paper publication will be only a Paper decree and nothing can be done. If the Complainant or his father traces OP4, if there is warranty though against the contract if it is valid, Complainant or his father are at liberty to approach Civil Court against OP4 for which this Order will not come in the way.
13. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, we hold the above points accordingly and we pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
3. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th of June 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
