Haryana

Karnal

CC/103/2021

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vectus Industries Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Naveen Kumar

25 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 103 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.18.02.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:25.07.2024

 

Pritam Singh age 54 years son of Shri Telu, resident of VPO Sambhli, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Aadhar no.6605 9781 7010.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.                                             Versus

 

1. Vectus Industries Limited, 262, Jivaji Nagar, Thathipur, Gwalior-474011 (Madhya Pradesh).

 

2. M/s Handa Electrical, opposite New Bus Stand, Nissing-132024, Karnal.

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

 Argued by: None for the complainant.

                    Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 16.05.2022.

               

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:  

 

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is a farmer by profession and thus he cultivating land measuring 8 acre, situated in VPO Sambhli, tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. The OP is a famed company and is having good reputation in the market of submersible pipes, Vectus pipes etc. due to which the complainant purchased fourteen 4” Vectus Economy PPR pipe vide HSN Code 3917, from the OP no.2 for an total amount of Rs.20,320/-, vide bill no.76 dated 07.09.2020. At the time of selling the said pipes, the OP no.2 gave assurance the said items are of best quality. After purchasing the above mentioned pipes, the complainant got installed the said pipes by skill worker into the submersible pump, situated in his fields. Due to its lower quality, the said pipes got leakage and the submersible became got damaged and stopped working. Due to non-working of the submersible pump, the complainant could not irrigate his fields due to which he suffered huge financial loss. After that the complainant immediately approached the OP no.2 with the demand of said new branded best quality pipes alongwith compensation on account of the complainant suffered huge loss due to leakage of previous lower quality pipes sold by the OP no.2 but the officials of the OPs not only refused to give new branded best quality pipes and compensation but also forcibly cast the complainant out of its shop premises while defaming him before the public. The complainant is a respectable member of the society and has deep roots in the society. Due to the deplorable conduct and the defamatory actions carried out by the OP and its officials towards the complainant before the public at large, the complainant has suffered untold mental agony, emotional distress, harassment and also financial loss. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 24.12.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that only nexus between the OP and the complainant is that the complainant had purchased fourteen “4” Vectus Economy PPR pipes bearing HSN code 3917 at the rate of Rs.1230/- per unit, totaling to an amount of Rs.20,319/-inclusive of the applicable taxes from the shop/outlet of OP no.2. These PPR pipes were manufactured by the OP. The said PPR pipes which were thereafter installed in the complainant’s field for the purposes of preparing a submersible pump resulted in leakage which led to the alleged damage of the submersible pump situated in the complainant’s field. The entire premise of the complaint is laid upon the assumption of the complainant that the leakage of the said PPR pipes was a result of it being faulty and defective. Such assumption of complainant is neither supported through photographs nor any documentaries corroboration to demonstrate as to how the PPR pipes were faulty. The complaint is thus, completely devoid of any merit to show let alone prove as to how the said PPR pipes manufactured by the OP and thereafter sold by OP no.2 were/are defective. It is further pleaded that it is negligence on the part of complainant himself and his installation team which included unskilled workers/labourers that has led to the alleged leakage of the PPR pipes and has ultimately caused damage to the complainant’s pump, if any. The issue of negligence was duly brought to the knowledge of the complainant by the OP on 30.10.2020, when an onsite physical inspection of the installed products was carried out by the OP at the behest of the OP no.2 in accordance with the good industry practice and well established customer services and quality assessment practices. During the inspection, it was observed at the site that the PPR pipes belonged to the 110 mm economy pipe category bearing batch no.2020061411. On further examination, it was gathered that the PPR pipes were not connected properly to the coupler during the fusion jointing procedure at the time of installing the PPR pipe. This led to the joining between the pipe and the coupler flange to be improper and hence led to the leakage. This negligent installation of PPR pipes by unskilled persons was the root cause of the leakage and not any manufacturing defects of the pipes. It is further pleaded that OP still proposed to offer a free replacement for the identical PPR pipes or its different model upto the limit of the cost which was incurred by the complainant. The said offer was specifically made to the complainant by the inspection representative and customer support team of the OP. However, this request was denied by the complainant with no reasoning whatsoever. It is further pleaded that OP manufacturers its PPR pipes out of most reliable polymer material used in the piping system industry which is Polypropylene Random Copolymer. The PPR pipes manufactured by the OP and thereafter sold at the outlet of the OP no.2 are neither defective nor faulty. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.       

3.             OP no.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 16.05.2022 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 07.09.2020 Ex.C1, copy of legal notice dated 24.12.2020 Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 02.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A, copy of certified copy of extracts of minutes Ex.OP1, copy of consumer complaint visit report dated 31.10.2020 Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 03.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

 7.            We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             As per the version of the complainant, he purchased a fourteen 4” Vectus Economy PPR pipe from the OPs no.2. He got installed the said pipes into the submersible pump, situated in his fields. Due to inferior quality, the said pipes got leakage and the submersible became got damaged.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant purchased the pipes in question from the OP no.2 and these PPR pipes were manufactured by the OP no.1. It is negligence on the part of complainant himself and his installation team which included unskilled workers which cause of the leakage and not any manufacturing defects in the pipes.  On receipt of complaint, matter was investigated and during inspection, it was observed that the PPR pipes were not connected properly to the coupler during the fusion jointing procedure at the time of installing the PPR pipe. This led to the joining between the pipe and the coupler flange to be improper and hence led to the leakage. This negligent installation of PPR pipes by unskilled persons was the root cause of the leakage and not any manufacturing defects of the pipes. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. To prove his version, complainant produced only copy of bill dated 07.09.2020 Ex.C1, copy of legal notice dated 24.12.2020 Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C4 except these documents there is no other evidence to ascertain that complainant approached the OPs and made any complaint with regard to the manufacturing defect in the pipes in question. Rather, on the other hand, to prove its version OP no.1 has placed on file Customer Complaint Visit Report Ex.OP2 dated 30.10.2020, which is reproduced as under:-

        Detail of complaint

PPR Submersible pipe Economy 110 mm (4”) coupler joint open in borewell.

Physical Observation at Site:-

1. Submersible Pipe 110 mm Economy pipe Batch no.2020061411 and Flange coupler fusion joint open in bore well. Total 1 nos of failure found at site.
2. Post examination of that faulty pipe and coupler, the material was not cut properly from coupler during the fusion welding and joint completed. Hence the joint was not proper.
3. According to distributor and customer, total 13 nos of pipe were installed in bore well with submersible pump and the deep last joint opened in borewell.

Root Cause (As Identified)

Improper fusion jointing is the foot cause of the failure.

Correction and Corrective Action

Correction:-  Observation undertaken at the site. Information regarding installation problem pointed out to the farmer.

Corrective Action: Since this is not a pipe manufacturing defects and pipe leakage was on account of procedural negligence in installation of submersible, no corrective action is required.

Customer Suggestions:-

The customer wants the claim against his losses.

Compensation with customer:-

1. The customer wants to claim the expenses in pulling submersible pump from the borewell due to this failure.

 

11.           On perusal of said report, it reveals that the leakage occurred due to procedural negligence on account of installation person. Furthermore, there is no expert report placed on file by the complainant to prove that there is any manufacturing defect in the pipes in question. Moreover, complainant is not pursued his case for the last two adjourned dates, it appears that now complainant no more interested to pursue his case. There is nothing on the file to prove that pipes supplied by the OPs were inferior quality and complainant had installed the same in proper procedure.

12.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:25.07.2024                                                                     

                                                              President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                          Member                          Member