Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/101/2022

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adarsh PVC Pipe - Opp.Party(s)

Pardeep Kumar

08 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 101 of 2022

                   Date of Institution             : 27.05.2022

                                                            Date of Decision               : 08.08.2024

 

Satish Kumar son of Sh. Rattan Singh R/o village Gadhwa, P.O. Gaindawas,Tehsil Siwani, District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Adarsh PVC Pipes Private Limited, Plot NO.1415, HSIIDC, Industrial Estate, Rai, Sonipat, Haryana, 1 through its authorized signatory.

….. Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Sunil Vats, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant contacted the OP for purchasing of pipes for his field and it showed best quality pipes to complainant.  Accordingly, on 10.04.2022 a bundle of 250 pipes was sent to complainant. Complainant installed the said pipes in his 20 acres land and incur Rs.33,000/- for installation of the pipes. As per complainant, he came to know that before reaching the water at point, the pipes were broken from many places. The matter qua low quality pipes was brought into notice of OP and complainant requested the OP to replace the defective pipes and to pay him the installation charges but OP refused for the same.  Legal notice dated 09.05.2022 was served upon the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to change the defective pipes and issue high quality pipes and to pay Rs.4.00 lac as compensation for harassment besides Rs.22,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua jurisdiction, complainant is not a consumer, maintainability of complaint, complaint is false and frivolous and that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased the pipes in question from it but the same were taken for selling purpose to third party and not for his personal use. It is suggested that the same product which shown to complainant was sent to him.  Further, the pipes were sent in vehicle No. HR69 D 9474 arranged by complainant for transit of the goods and after approval of complainant.  It has been urged that complainant was in need of high pressure capacity pipes but he purchased pipes with less capacity to carry the water, therefore, the pipes were burst due to negligence of complainant and OP is not liable to replace or exchange the same with their own brand or with any other brand. In the end, denied for any deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.                 Complainant in order to prove the case has placed on record his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and affidavits to Ex. CW2/A & Ex. CW3/A of Sh. Mandeep and Sh. Vijender Singh alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other side, learned counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Saurabh Jain, Director of OP company as Ex. RW1/A alongwith documents Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld. counsel for OP has placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. M/s Vipul Ltd. 2023 (3) Law Herald SC 2244, and  Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi 2016 (4) CLP-95 titled M/s Monarch Innovative Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoj Krishna Thakur and Further, 2016 (1) CPJ-641 titled Aditya Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and anr. We have gone carefully through the observations made by the case laws.

6.                 At the outset, in order to prove the purchase of the pipes, complainant has placed on record invoice (Annexure C-3) which reveals that the pipes were purchased by him from OP on 10.04.2022 in a sum of Rs.1,76,281/-., however, this fact has also been admitted by OP. Further to prove the factum that the pipes were of low quality, complainant has placed on record  photographs Annexure C-4 to Annexure C-6 which reveals that the pipes under the land were cracked and water was accumulated near the pipes. Complainant has also placed on record affidavit and Sh. Mandeep (Ex. CW2/A) which shows that Rs.33,000/- (Rs.10,000/- as labour charges and Rs.23,000/- as tractor charges) were incurred by complainant on labour work to install the pipes under the land.  He has also issued payment receipt that he had received Rs.10,000/- from complainant in lieu of keeping the pipes underneath the land. He has also stated in this receipt that on checking, pipes were found cracked.  In contrary to the above, learned counsel for OP has argued that the pipes which were purchased by complainant were of best quality, however, there might be negligence on the part of complainant that he had purchased low pressure capacity pipes than the high pressure capacity. Ld. counsel for OP has also referred documents Ex.R-1 & Ex. R-2 qua permission to them for manufacturing the pipes from Govt. of India and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.

7.                 After hearing learned counsel for complainant and going through the entire record, we have observed that the pipes were not of good quality and thus was not able to carry water and cracked in its early days. It is pertinent to mention that a low quality products especially when we are talking about PVC pipes, it should have worked properly for some days/ months but it did not work as per requirement. Therefore, in totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered opinion that the pipes so supplied by OP company to the complainant were defective in its quality and because of which complainant has to suffer financial loss as well as mental pain and physical harassment. Accordingly the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.1,76,281/- (Rs. One lac seventy six thousand two hundred eighty one) to the complainant, alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The OP is at liberty to take back the pipes from the field of complainant, if he so desires, at own expenses within a reasonable time period.   

(ii)      Further to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on the aforesaid awarded amount for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both. Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.    

Announced.

Dated:08.08.2024