Haryana

Ambala

CC/387/2021

Satwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Earth Agro Structures - Opp.Party(s)

Harpreet Singh Baidwan

15 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaintcase no.	:	387 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	16.12.2021
Date of decision	:	15.09.2023

Satwinder Singh S/o Sh. Lakhbir Singh, R/O Village Saunda, Ambala City.

…..Complainant

Versus

1. M/S Earth Agro Structures Pvt. Ltd., 425, 4th floor, the Golden Square, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Zirakpur, Distt. Mohali, Punjab, through its Managing Director. Pin 140603
2. District Horticulture Department, Court Road, Agri Farm, Ambala City, through its DHO.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:          Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Harpreet Singh Baidwan, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Arun Kumar Batra, Advocate for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the torn net sheets and repair the  damaged structure;
2. To pay business loss of Rs.18,00,000/-, on account of deficiency in service.
3. To pay bank interest loss of Rs.18315/-;
4. To pay compensation of Rs.5 lacs for mental harassment
5. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs. 

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

 

2.           Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a farmer by profession and have agricultural land in village Majri. He was desirous and looking forward to setup a Net house Structure for advanced and progressive farming and wanted to shift from conventional crop cycle. To satisfy his need in the year 2018 the complainant visited the office of OP No.2. After taking the knowledge about the setup of a Net house Structure, he came in contact of OP No.1 to buy a net house Structure, who assured him to provide best quality material available in the market. After getting the professional training of horticulture from the department of OP No.2 the complainant applied for 4000 square meter Net house Structure in the year 2018. The above said project was very costly project and as such the State Government provide subsidy to promote horticulture through OP No.2. Total estimated cost of the Structure was Rs.22,80,000/ and the subsidy share was Rs.14,82,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs.7,98,000/- was paid by the complainant after taking a loan of Rs.12,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank Ambala. OP No.1 installed the Net house structure on 29.05.2019 and gave guarantee of the structure for three years on material supplied from the date of invoice. After the completion of the structure a mild storm hit the structure in the month of June 2019, and it was torn from multiple sides, which was repaired by OP No.1. In the month of March 2020 the structure was again hit by rain and mild Storm, and structure was damaged very badly due to its cheap quality. Due to this damage of structure the crop of cucumber was destroyed. In the month of June 2020 the net of structure was again torn, and the pipes of structure were also damaged due to its poor quality which was repaired by OP No.1 but it took too much time to repair the same, yet, some sheets of the net were not repairable and O.P No.1 stitched the same to save the money only. In the month of May 2021 the net of the structure was again torn badly in mild rain and the complainant requested O.P No.1 to repair the same, but it failed to do so.  Resultantly, the complainant gave a written request to OP No.2 on 24.05.2021, which in turn wrote to the Mission Director HSHDA, Panchkula. The said office issued Memo no.2161/Hort./APO/P/14/27/21-22 dated 30.07.2021 and give directions to OP No.1 to repair the structure but to no avail.  The complainant is a marginal farmer and had taken heavy loan of Rs.12,00,000/- for construction of net house structure, it is difficult to repay the installment of the loan amount without the proper operation of net house structure. Complainant left with no option other than to file the present complaint. 
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainable, not come with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts and no locus-standi etc. On merits, it has been stated that Net House Structure of 4,000/- sq. meters was installed after the satisfaction of the complainant and OP No.2 and that was why subsidy was granted by OP No.2 to the complainant. OP No.1 has provided three years warranty on the said Net House Structure for cladding material for repairing the same, which period started from the day of invoice. As per warranty certificate OP No.1 was not responsible for any consequential damages/liabilities beyond its control like natural calamities etc. The material used for the said Net House Structure was strictly as per guidelines of Haryana State Horticulture Department. In the month of June 2019 and March 2020, Net House Structure was damaged due to mild storm and rain which was repaired by OP No.1 to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. OP No.1 was always ready to repair the said Net House Structure, when it got damaged in May 2021 but the complainant refused to get it repaired. The OP No.1 has given one year insurance of the structure and thereafter the complainant himself was liable to get the same insured but he did not get insured the same, after passing of one year. Information in this regard was also given to OP No.2 vide email dated 14.09.2021. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 in its written version also took almost same objections and pleas as have been taken by OP No.1 in its written version. However, additionally, it has been stated in its written version that as per joint inspection of Inspection Team including the farmer and OP No.1, O No.2 released the financial assistance to the complainant.  OP No.2 has not received any complaint regarding damage of Net House Structure in question. OP No.2 has also released Rs.276640/- for high value vegetables in Net House Structure for setting up the first crop as per guidelines. A complaint was received from the complainant to the effect that in May 2021 the Net House Structure was torn but OP No.1 did not repair the same, as a result of which OP No.2 reported the matter to Mission Director HSHDA. Thereafter, letter was issued to OP No.1 to repair the said Net House Structure. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-27 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Sunil Gandhi, Director of M/s Earth Agro Structure Pvt. Ltd., Office at Cabin No.425, 4^th Floor, Golden Square, Zirakpur, Punjab as Annexure RA alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Dinesh Kumar, District Horticulture Consultant of District Horticulture Department Ambala, District Ambala as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-16 to R-30 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by supplying the inferior material of Net House Structure, which got torn number of times, within few days of its purchase and at the same time, by not repairing the same, when it again got torn in May 2021, OP No.1 is deficient in providing service. The ld. counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the judgment/order dated 18.06.2020, in the case of Jivan Lal Verma vs. Kishan Agroteck, 2020 (2) C.P.R.446.  
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that it was the complainant who refused to get the said Net House Structure repaired, which was torn in the month of May 2021, which fact was reported by OP No.1 to OP No.2 vide email dated 14.09.2021, Annexure R-12. He further submitted that the Net House Structure provided to the complainant was of very high quality, for which three years warranty/guarantee was given to him. He further submitted that the complainant failed to obtain insurance policy in respect of the Net House Structure after one year of its purchase, which was violation of condition no.26 of the Guidelines of Haryana State Horticulture Department. The ld. counsel for the OPs has placed reliance on the judgment/order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Gauri Devangan vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency & Another.  
9.           It may be stated here that the facts regarding, sale of the Net House Structure by OP No.1 to the complainant on 17.10.2018, vide Tax Invoice Annexure C-13; subsidy given by OP No.2 to the complainant towards purchase of the said Net House Structure; warranty of three years given by OP No.1 for the said Net House Structure; and repair of the said Net House Structure twice during warranty period by OP No.1, as it was hit by mild storm/rain are not in dispute, therefore, the moot question which falls for determination before this Commission is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get any relief in the matter or not. It may be stated here that it is clearly evident from certificate dated 21.11.2018, Annexure C-11, given by OP No.1 to the complainant that OP No.1 gave warranty/guarantee for cladding material of Net House Structure on behalf of the manufacturer for manufacturing defects for 3 years on the material supplied by it. As stated above, it is also an admitted fact that the said Net House Structure was repaired twice by OP No.1 in the June 2019 when it was hit by mild storm and thereafter in March 2020 when it was again hit by rain and mild storm. However, as per the version of the complainant, in May 2021, when it was again hit by mild rain and got damaged, it was not repaired by OP No.1, as a result of which, the complainant wrote letter dated 24.05.2021, Annexure C-21 to OP No.2 in the matter. It is further evident from the email dated 14.09.2021, Annexure R-12 having been written by OP No.1 to OP No.2,  informing that OP No.1 had sent labour and material to the site for repair but the complainant refused to get it repaired and returned the labour back and thereafter OP No.1 tried to contact him but he is not responding. It was also informed to OP No.2 that the complainant has not got insured the Net House Structure which is violation of condition no.26 of the Guidelines of Haryana State Horticulture Department.  At this stage, it is significant to mention here that irrespective of the fact that the complainant had got the Net House Structure insured or not, once OP No.1 has given warranty/guarantee of 3 years on the said Net House Structure, it is duty bound to repair the same or replace the defective parts therein, free of cost and as such cannot move about out of its liability on this ground.
10.           Be that as it may, in para no.7 of the written version on merits, OP No.1 has clearly stated that though OP No.1 was always ready to repair the Net House Structure of the complainant but he himself did not get the same repaired. However, there is nothing on record that any such letter was ever written by OP No.1 to the complainant informing him that since he refused to get the Net House Structure repaired, therefore it cannot be held liable in the matter. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that by not repairing the Net House Structure in question during warranty period, OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to the complainant.
11.           It may be stated here that in the case of Gauri Devanangan Vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency (supra), upon which, the learned counsel for the OPs has placed reliance, the grievance of the complainant was that she did not receive the subsidy amount in her account, whereas the grievance of the complainant in the present case is that inspite of the fact that the Net House Structure got damaged during warranty but the OP No.1 did not repair/replace the same, as such, the facts of this case are different from the case Gauri Devanangan Vs. Priyadarshani Gas Agency (supra).
12.           Since there is no deficiency proved on the part of OP No.2 therefore complaint against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the present complaint against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To repair the Net House Structure in question and replace the defective parts if any, free of costs.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 15.09.2023.

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President