Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/28/2013

Assaithambi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, M/S. Krishna pipes and Electric ales. - Opp.Party(s)

S.Veerapandian

30 Dec 2014

ORDER

  Date of Filing      : 11.07.2013

                                                                                         Date of Disposal: 30.12.2014

           

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., …. MEMBER I

                   Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMBER II

 

CC. No.28/2013

 

DECIDED ON THIS 30^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014.

 

Asaithambi

S/o Thangavel

No.2/5, Main Road,

Vavvaladi Village,

Enangkudi post,

Nagapattinam Taluk.                                                           … Complainant

                                                                                      

                                                                /versus/

 

1. Thiru. Muthu, Proprietor,

     M/S Krishna Pipes & Electricals,

     M.M.R. Complex, Kachcheri Road,

     Mayiladuthurai – 1.

2. Kavitha Pipes Pvt. Ltd.,

    On behalf of its Proprietor,

    No.6, Irumbuli Village (Via)

    Near Achcharupakkam,

     Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu.                                        … Opposite parties

 

                

 

            This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 11.12.2014 on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.S.Veerapandian, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru.G.Vijayasundaram, counsel for the opposite parties and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum passed the following

 

 

ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

        2. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that the complainant Purchased the 8 inch Vani PVC pipes for the length of 160 feet on 23.04.2013 from the 1^st opposite party, for Rs.40,390/- in order to erect in the bore well of the complainant.  When the pipes were erected in the bore well and when attempt was made to irrigate the water through compressor, the water did not come out and it was found that the bore well PVC pipe was jammed together to a length of 20 feet thereby obstructing the flow of water outside. When the pipes were taken out through qualified persons, 5 length of pipes measuring total length of 50 feet were found out in good condition, 2 length of pipes measuring the length of 20 feet were found to be jammed together and the remaining 9 length of pipes measuring total length of 90 feet, could not be taken out from the bore well and it is remaining inside the bore well.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Manufacturer of the said PVC pipe selling the substandard quality of PVC pipe.  The opposite party thus has committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.   The complainant has incurred expenditure of Rs.25,000/- towards the task of taking out the  PVC pipes. The complainant had incurred loss of Rs.27,768/- as PVC pipes of 90 feet length could not be taken out for use.  The complainant could not irrigate water from the bore well in that season and has incurred loss in the cultivation also.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure caused to the complainant.  For the notice sent by the complainant through his lawyer to the 1^st opposite party on 28.05.2013 the latter has sent a reply on 06.06.2013 through his lawyer, making false averments therein.  The complainant therefore prays for an order to direct the opposite party to pay the sum of Rs.1,47,720/- towards the expenditure to get the PVC pipes out of the borewell, the cost of the PVC pipes, which got damaged and for his mental agony inconvenience and hardship caused to him and pay the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.

                        3. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has himself chosen the Vani PVC pipes and purchased it of his own accord. The PVC pipes are manufacturer by the standard company and has got ISI certificate. Many agriculturists have purchased and utilized the Vani PVC casing pipes, but so far no complaint is received by the opposite party. Two length of pipes measuring the length of 20 feet said to have been found out as jammed together is only because of the irregular procedure adopted by the complainant’s inexperienced and unskilled people in the erection of the PVC pipes in the bore well.  Even if the pebble stones were not sufficiently packed to encircle the PVC pipes they are likely to become defective and jammed at the time of taking out the water using the compressor.  Therefore there is every likelihood that the said pipes have been jammed together owing to the erection of the same in the bore well through inexperienced and unskilled people using irregular method.  The said damaged pipes have not been sent to the expert for testing to find out, whether there is any manufacturing defect in the said pipes.  Further 90 feet length of pipes have not been taken out of the earth and the condition of those pipes is not known. In the absence of any proof on the side of the complainant that he had employed experienced and skilled persons to erect the pipe in the bore well his allegation that the pipes had been defective in nature and hence it jammed could not be taken to be proved. For the notice sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, the latter has sent a detailed reply.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost to the complainant.

                        4. The 2^nd opposite party, the manufacturer of the Vani PVC pipes, who is subsequently impleaded in this complaint, has filed a separate written version reiterating mostly all the averments contained in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has filed his proof affidavit reiterating all the averments made in the complaint and 3 documents, which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A3. Exhibits B1 and B2 are filed by the opposite parties with a memo and they are marked as Exhibits B1 and B2. All the parties filed their respective proof affidavits.  Written arguments have been filed by both the sides.

5. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

                       2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

 

                        6. Point 1:  The 1^st opposite party is the authorised dealer for the supply of Vani & Polybore Brand ISI PVC Pipes and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said pipes. The complainant having purchased 160 feet of Vani 8 inches PVC pipes for erecting it in the  bore well in his land, has alleged that after erection and while using the compressor to check the water flow, 2 pipes measuring the length of 20 feet have jammed together obstructing the outlet of the water from out of the bore well 5 pipes measuring 50 feet have been taken out of the bore well and remaining  9 pipes measuring length of 90 feet are inside the bore well, as they could not be taken out and thus the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by manufacturing and selling defective PVC pipes to the complainant and therefore they are liable to pay compensation to him.  On the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the Vani Pipes are standard one and also approved by the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Department for its use and the complainant having himself opted for the brand of Vani pipes is not justified in making such false allegations against the opposite parties.  The opposite parties further contended that there is no warranty for  the PVC pipes and the complainant before the purchase of the pipes, inspected and verified its quality and durability and the alleged damage of the PVC pipes, ought to have been caused only because of the improper erection of pipe without using sufficient quantity  of pebble stones for packing and owing to the carelessness of unqualified and inexperienced people employed to erect the pipes.  The opposite parties are not liable to the said damage of the pipes.  For the notice sent by the complainant through his lawyer under Exhibit A2, the 1^st opposite party has sent a suitable reply under the Exhibit A3.  Exhibits B1 and B2 are licences issued by the Bureau of Indian Standard, Chennai which establishes the standard quality of the Vani pipes manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. 

          7. Five pipes measuring the length of 50 feet are admittedly intact in good condition and what is the condition of the 9 pipes measuring 90 feet which are inside the bore well is not known, as they could not be taken out for inspection. While the 1^st opposite party has stoutly denied the allegation of the complainant in the reply notice, the complainant ought to have taken steps to strictly prove the alleged defective nature of the pipes which are said to have been jammed together, obstructing the outlet of the water.  The quality of the said damaged pipes could be ascertained only by way of scientific test by the expert in that regard. The complainant has not taken any steps to substantiate his allegation of defective nature of the PVC pipes by producing expert report in that regard.

                        8. In such circumstances merely based on the allegation of the complainant alone it cannot be decided that the said Vani PVC pipes were defective in its production itself, as the contention of the opposite parties that the Vani pipes are also likely to be jammed or damaged if it is erected without carefully adopting the methods which are to be used and followed  in  that  regard  and  without  proper  and  sufficient package of pebbles stones around the pipes by the unqualified and inexperienced people. As the complainant has failed to prove scientifically by causing it to be inspected by a quality controller to find out the nature of quality of the Vani pipes, this Forum could not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

                        9. Point 2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  30^th   day of  December 2014.

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant

 

Ex/A1.Dt.23.04.2013: The Xerox copy of the Cash/Credit bill for Rs.40,390/- given by

   the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ex/A2.Dt.28.05.2013: The Xerox copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s counsel to

   the 1st opposite party.

Ex/A3.Dt.06.06.2013: The Xerox copy of the reply notice sent by the opposite parties’

    counsel to the complainant’s counsel.

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties

 

 

Ex/B1.Dt.25.10.2012: The Xerox copy of the Licence issued by the Bureau of Indian

    Standard, Chennai to the 1^st opposite party.

Ex/B2.Dt.26.03.2013: The Xerox copy of the Licence issued by the Bureau of Indian

    Standard, Chennai to the 1^st opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMBER II                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM.

 

CC.No.28/ 2013.

Order Dt.:30.12.2014.