Haryana

StateCommission

A/724/2019

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

WAZIR SINGH PUNIA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

02 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                               

                                                         First Appeal No.724of 2019

                                                Date of Institution: 20.08.2019

                                                        Date of order: 02.05.2023

 

Jain Irrigation System Ltd. Jain Plastic Park, N.H. No.6, Bambhori, Jalgaon (425-001) Maharashtra, India through its Authorized signatory Dhananjay Kumar Saraswat.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Wazir Singh Punia S/o Sh.Kanhi Ram aged 61 years R/o VPO Ladwa, Distt. Hisar now residing at H No.214, Urban Estate-2, Hisar Distt. Hisar, Haryana.

2.      Renewable Energy Department, Haryana &HaredaAkshayUrja Bhawan, Institutional Plot No.1, Sector 17, Panchkula through its Director/Director General/ Chairman.

3.      Department of New & Renewable Energy, Govt. AkshyaUrja Solar Shop, Project Officer, Mini Secretariat, Hisar, through its Assistant Project Manager/Project Manager/Manager/Any authorized representative.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswamiproxy counsel for Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.DevinderS. Punia, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   None for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

 

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application filed for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.724 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 20.08.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar(Now In short “District Commission”) in consumer complaint No.86 of 2018, which was allowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that the complainant intended to buy a solar photovoltaic (SPV) Pumping system with 2 H.P. Motor, in accordance with a scheme floated by Govt. of India executed through the Renewable Energy Department, Haryana and HAREDA AkshayUrja, Haryana respondent No.2. The scheme envisaged installation of solar water pump of 2 H.P. in rural areas over agricultural land.  As per the scheme 40% of the cost was to be borne by the complainant and remaining 60% of the cost would be foot by the Govt.  This is how complainant paid Rs.1,16,000/- vide demand draft No.771727 of 05.03.2013 in the name of Director General HAREDA i.e. respondent No.2 following which OP No.1 installed the 2 H P SPV pumpsetsomewhere in the month of December 2013, however, the said system was found to be defective in its first attempt of installation and the local engineers of OP No.1 company could not start the 2 HPelectric  motor itself.  A team of 2-3 engineers also arrived and tried their best to  re-assemble the motor and simply managed to start the 2 HP motor but could not assemble it in its original shape.  After installment of this equipment complainant started facing problems in watering his plants due to intermittent loss of  water pressure in 2 H.P. motor resulting water flow problem, which was duly informed to OP No.1 in the month of March, 2014 orally. After this development a team of Jain Irrigation Engineers inspected the SPV pumping system of 2 HP and also replaced some parts thereof and engineers of OP No.1 company assured that this problem will not recur, but, after a gap of two months other fresh  problems surfaced such as leakage of water from the pump, deafing noises alongwith loss of pressure from the pump which were also communicated to OP No.1 orally and OP No.1 deputed a plumber after a gap of 20 days towards the end of July, 2014 who carried out  a shoddy job. A team of two engineers  againvisited the complainant’s field in the month of February 2015 and inspected the 2 HP electric motor,but asked for some time to replace some parts of motor which got broken. These engineers came again in the month of March 2015 and replaced the defective parts. However to his good luck all these repairs were done free of charge for about 6-7 times in the span of 2 years. Thereafter, the SPV pumping system of 2 HP motor again started giving touble in its functioning. As such, the complainant met with the officials of OP NO.3 on 20.09.2013, and handed over a complaint for removing the fault and thereafter OP No.1 again inspected the SPV pumping system and carried out the necessary repair works but after some days this set again became faulty.  On 7.11.2016, the complainant again visited the premises of OP No.3 and put in written request for replacement of SPV pump set. Online complaint was also submitted. Again the engineers of the OP No.1 inspected the motor and carried out some repair work, but, after some days, the same problem occurred. Although the product was still under warranty yet OP No.1 intentionally and knowingly is delaying the replacement of the solar pump by carrying out repeated repairs.  Despite issuing several emails with regard a request to replace the  pump set  they have did not considered the genuine request of the complainant. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

4.      Notice being issued to the Ops and they filed separate written version.  OP No.1 submitted that there was no such problem inthe  installation of motor. The payment of OP No.1 has not been released by the concerned department as the complainant has not submitted the satisfactory report. The answering OP has been doing timely repairs of the motor from time to time. Infact the complainant himself had removed the Jali from underneath the motor and acted himself as engineer in order to increase water pressure.  Otherwise he has given his satisfactory report on the job sheets.   It was denied that on 07.11.2016 complainant again visited the premises of OP No.3. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.

5.      OP Nos.2 and 3 filed joint written statement and submitted that the complainant applied for the said solar system to OP No.3 and after verification his car was forwarded to the Head office of the department. The application was sanctioned by OP No.2 and OP No.1 got the tender for installation and commissioning of Solar water pumping system from Govt. of Haryana.  The complainant was fully satisfied at the time of installation of 2 HP motor and he had signed the joint Commissioning Report (JCR). The complainant never complained about the faulty motor to them. They were not liable for any defect in the pump set during warranty of the motor or pumping set because Govt. of Haryana hadpublished  the tender in newspaper and OP No.1 happened to be successful bidder and got the tender of solar pump throughout Haryana.  They  have directed the OP No.1 t overhaul the motor or to replace the same. Several times OP No.1 again repaired the motor but complainant did not give his repairing report and made a complaint again through email with regard to the change of solar pump.   The complainant has been using the pump since 2013-2014, so he has no right to claim Rs.1,16,000/-.  All other allegations were wrong and denied. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Hisarhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 23.05.2019, which is as under:-

“The present  complaint is accordingly allowed and the OP No.1 is directed to replace the SPV pumping system of 2 HP pump in question with a new one of the same price without charging any cost from the complainant. In case the pumping system cannot be replaced in that eventuality the OP No.1 is directed for making a payment of Rs.1,16,000/- i.e. price of the SPV pumping system of 2 HP to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further burdened with compensation/cost of litigation which we quantify at Rs.10,000/- payable to the complainant. No deficiency has been proved against the OPs No.2 and 3.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom,  theOP No.1has preferred this appeal.

8.      These argument were advanced by Mr.Rohit Goswami proxy counsel for Mr.Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for theappellantand  Mr. DevinderPunia, Advocate for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of the appealincluding the evidence already led on behalf of the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      It is also true that complainant applied for the said solar system to OP No.3 and after verification this OP No.3 forwarded his case to Head office of the department and thesame was sanctioned by OP No.2 consequently and OP No.1 got the tender of installation and commissioning of Solar water pumping system from Govt. of Haryana. It is also not disputed that the Haryana Govt. was supposed to bear 60% per cent of the cost  forinstallation of solar water pumping system.Further it is also true that complainant was fully satisfied initially at the time of installation of 2 HP motor in the month of December 2013. It is also not disputed that above said SPV  pumping system was under a warranty of five years.  Perusal of the record shows that the SPV pumping system developed some snags on several occasions during the period of two years and despite necessary repairs carried out by the engineers, the fault could not be rectified.  It is also admitted by the OP No.1 in its written statement of defencethat  “OP No.1 has been doing timely repairs of the motor from time to time and once a snake was also found in the said motor which was removed and after cleaning the motor it was made functional. Each and every occasion whenever the repairs were done, the same was videographed.” Ex.C-5 also reveals that the motor was not working properly. Ex.C-6 also reflects clearly that some technical representative to repair/replace the defective solar pumping system used to be deputed immediately whenever reported. Ex.C-7 and Ex.C-8 i.e. online complaints were made to the OPs about non functioning of motor. Emails Ex.C-9 to C-12 also mention about the non functioning of motor or replace of the motor. Ex.C-13 to C-15 are letters of the respondent No.2, which directed the opposite party No.1 to repair/replace the solar system.  All these documents apparently show that the pump set installed at the fields of complainant did not have a smooth and continuous working otherwise why complainant would have made false reports. It proves that opposite party No.1 was intentionally not providing upto mark and good services to the complainant.The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint. The learned District Commission committed no illegality while passing the order dated 23.05.2019.  The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant-Wazir Singh Punia S/o Sh. Kanhi Ram against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.       Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.       A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.      File be consigned to record room.

 

Date of order                                                                       (S. P. Sood)

02.05.2023                                                                            Judicial Member

 

S.K (Pvt. Secy.)