AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in the present Revision Petitions filed by Mohd. Hanif Jakaria, Proprietor M/s. Bharat Bore well (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Contractor) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’), is to the Orders dated 15.09.2017 in Appeal Nos. A / 2017 / 401 to 405 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has affirmed the findings recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bastar (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Forum’) holding deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Contractor.
Since the facts and questions of law involved in all these Revision Petition are similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed off through this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP No. 314 of 2018 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are taken from Consumer Complaint No. CC/05/2016.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant Farmer and other five persons had given application to the office of Senior Agriculture Development Officer Keshkal in year 2011-2012 through Rural Extension Officer for giving grant for doing bore well mining under Farmer Improvement Scheme of Agriculture Department on their land bearing Khasra No.260/530, area 3.70 Hectare, situated at village Singanpur, Tehsil Keshkal. After the registration of case by the Office of Deputy Agriculture, Jagdalpur, the matter was sent to Adim Jaati Seva Sehkari Samiti Singanpur for bore well mining and installation of submersible pump. As per terms of the Scheme, in case of insufficient water in borewell, the mining agency was bound to do mining work again. As per the order of Adim Jati Seva Sehkari Samiti Maryadit Jagdalpur (Bastat) C.G., Branch Manager Keshkal had sanctioned the loan amount of ₹80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand) and the mining agency, i.e., the Petitioner / Opposite Party Contractor was given contract for mining the bore-well and installation of submersible pump in the fields of the Respondent/Complainant Farmers under work quotation dated 09.04.2012, in which 01 Nag guaranteed submersible mining work, heavy M.S. Kasing 150 M.S. Vyas of ₹80,000/- and one Nag Pression Company of ISI Mark submersible electricity pump with all elements of penal board and complete fitting work is ₹20,000/- ISI Mark, i.e., total sum of ₹1,00,000/-, was mentioned. The terms No.9 was regarding ‘no water no payment’. The Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor obtained signatures of the Respondent/Complainant farmers on satisfaction certificate before installation of submersible pump in their field and ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) was received as cash from the Respondent/Complainant Farmer, receipt of which was not issued. It is the case of the Complainant Farmer that although the Petitioner Contractor has assured for guaranteed submersible mining in quotation yet the same has not been complied and the officers of Agriculture Department without checking the availability of water in well and the physical verification of work, had issued the satisfaction certificate. Since there was insufficient water in the borewell, the Respondent/Complainant Farmers asked the Petitioner Contractor for submersible mining again as per terms of the quotation, but the Petitioner Contractor did not do submersible mining. The Respondent/Complainant Farmers moved application before the Collector for investigation, who disposed off the application by directing the Complainant Farmers to file the case before the Court. Being aggrieved, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor, the Respondent/Complainant Farmers filed Consumer Complaints before the District Forum.
Initially vide Order dated 25.06.2016, the District Forum dismissed the Complaints being not maintainable. On appeal, vide Order dated 13.12.2016 the State Commission set aside the Order passed by the District Forum and remanded the case to District Forum with a direction to decide the matter on merits after providing ample opportunity of hearing to both the Parties.
The matter was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor before the District Forum. It was contended that he has not received a sum of ₹60,000/- towards mining charges either from the Respondent/Complainant or from the Authorised Bank. If the submersible mining was failed then on requesting by him why the Adim Jati Seva Sehkari Samiti Singanpur gave order to Jaiswal Krishi Seva Kendra Keshkar to give him new pump set on 21.07.2012 and why the complainant did not request the bank for granting money for purchase of new pump. There was sufficient water in the borewell, therefore, again mining of borewell was not done. The Senior Agriculture Development Officer had issued certificate dated 14.07.2012 certifying that there was sufficient water for 12 months in the borewell. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Complaint be dismissed.
After hearing both the Parties and perusal of the material available on record, vide Order dated 29.03.2017, the District Forum held that the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor was deficient in providing service, as he had not done the bore-well mining again and not installed the submersible pump in the fields of the Respondents/Complainants in accordance with the prescribed terms of the scheme and quotation and allowed the Complaints in following terms:-
“1. As per loan sanctioned to the Applicants in Case Nos.05,06,07,08 & 09, if any legal obstruction in bore well mining in terms of quotation terms under Krishak Smridhi Yojna, does not occur to non-applicant Mohd. HaneefJakaria Prop. Bharat Bore Wells, Harra Padav Balock, near office Main road Keshkal, then he shall complete the guaranteed bore well mining work within the period of 30 days from order.
On not providing guaranteed bore mining tax by Non-Applicant as per relief para-1, the condition of “no water no payment” shall be applicable.
The Non-Applicant shall be entitled to receive sanctioned loan amount of ₹80,000/- under Kisan Smridhi Yojna after deducting a sum of ₹20,000/-paid by applicants.
If the Non-Applicant does not comply the relief Para No.1 to 4 then, he shall return the amount of ₹20,000/- received from case No.05.06,07,08,09, to each of the applicants along with interest @6% simple annual interest within the 60 days after 30 days of passing of order.
If the Non-Applicant failed to pay the above said amount of ₹20,000/- to each applicant within 60 days then the rate of interest will increase to 12% on the above said amount.
If any legal obstruction takes place in guaranteed bore well mining then, after the removal of such obstruction, the limitation period of 30 days and 60 days shall be deemed to be enforced.
The Non-Applicant shall pay ₹8000/- to each applicant for mental harassment.
The Non-Applicant shall bear the cost of suit of ₹2,000/- in each of the Applicants in Case No. 05,06,07,08 and 09 alongwith cost of his suit.”
Being aggrieved by the Order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor, filed Appeals before the State Commission.
Based on the material adduced and pleadings put forwarded, the State Commission vide Impugned Orders dated 15.09.2017 passed in separate Appeal bearing Nos. FA/2017/401, FA/2017/402, FA/2017/403, FA/2017/404 & FA/2017/405, while affirming the findings recorded by the District Forum, dismissed the Appeals preferred by the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor, by observing as under:
“As such the Non-Applicant has admitted that he has received money from complainant for bore well mining and the complainant has filed the complaint on this ground that on not finding sufficient water in submersible, the Non Applicant did not recomplete the bore well mining work and did not install the submersible pump. As such this complaint has been filed on the basis of deficiency in service and as such the Non-Applicant is Service provider" and complainant is Consumer and this dispute falls under the category of “Consumer Dispute" under Section 2 (1) (E) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
So far the merits is concerned, the Complainant has clearly Stated that the Non-Applicant had done bore well mining work but, on not finding sufficient water in submersible, the mining agency was asked to do mining work again but, the Non-Applicant agency did not complete the mining work again and it has been mentioned in Para No.4 that the “The Bharat Bore well Kehskar which is operated by Non-Applicant provided the mining related quotation to farmers in which 01 Nag guaranteed mining Work heavy M.S. Kasing 150 M.S. Vyas of ₹80,000/- and one Nag Pression Company of ISI Mark submersible electricity pump with all elements of penal board and complete fitting work is ₹20,000/-, i.e., total sum of ₹1,00,000/- is mentioned therein". Though the Non-Applicant has denied with these facts but, the Complainant in support of his arguments has also produced his affidavit. The complainant has produced the photocopy of Quotation, Water availability certificate and Loan report.
The Complainant has produced one Complaint given to Collector, District Kondagaon wherein it is mentioned that the contract was made with Non-Applicant for installing 3 H.P. Taxmo but, the Non-Applicant has not dug the two bores till now and 02 bores have been failed and 2.5 HP of pump has been installed in place of 3 HP. Similarly, the Complaint has also sent Complaint to the Manager, Agriculture Jagdalpur, District Bastar, comprising the signatures of Hira Lal and Hem Lal and thumb impressions of Itwari Ram and Birju.
The Complainant has also produced the photocopy of survey report and it is clearly mentioned in this report that:-
"Mohd. Haneef Jakaria, Prop. of Bharat Borewells, Keshkal had done the borewell mining Work in the fields of farmers with the condition of installing 03 HP of guaranteed borewell . After mining, on not finding sufficient water in bore well, the mining agency had provided pump of 1.5 Horsepower but, the farmers were not satisfied with the pump of 1.5 Horsepower and 03-03 horsepower of submersible pump of Make sabar were provided by Jayswal Krishi Seva Kendra. This fact was come to knowledge by the statements of farmers. On survey it was found that the borewell mining work was done in the fields of Cultivators only one time, It is cleared by the statements or Cultivators that Mohd. Haneef Jakaria, Prop. of Bharat Borewell, Keshkal has not done the borewell mining again as per the terms guaranteed borewell mining and has not installed the mining/pump dischargeable upto 03 Inch water".
As such it is clear that the Non-Applicant has not done the guaranteed bore well mining again and it makes clear that the Non-Applicant has not done the borewell mining work in accordance with the prescribed terms and conditions and nor has installed the submersible pump which shows deficiency in service.
In perspective of above consideration the order passed by District Forum is the is totally appropriate and there is no and irregularity and illegality in it and also does not need to make any also interference in same.”
Being aggrieved/dissatisfied with the Impugned Orders dated 15.09.2017 passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner/Opposite party Contractor has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Opposite Party contractor, submitted that the Orders passed by both the fora below are liable to be set aside as the Fora below failed to appreciate that the Complaint was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., Adim Jati Sehkari Sewa Samiti; the Fora below had wrongly relied upon the Order passed by the Revenue Court, which is not based upon any physical inspection or proper evidence; the fora below failed to appreciate that if the digging of the well and subsequent water availability were unsuccessful there was no occasion for the Respondents/Complainants to procure submersible from the other distributors; the prayer of the Respondents/Complainants was for return of the money to the Admi Jati Sahkari Bank and for waiver of loan but the Respondents did not make Admit Jati Sahkari Bank a party in the present Complaint; the Fora below had wrongly held that the tube-well mining done by the Petitioner was not successful whereas the Senior Agricultural Development Officer had himself issued the water availability certificate to the Petitioner as he had successfully done the mining in the field and operated the pump in front of the Farmers/Villagers and the Senior Agricultural Development Officer. It was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on his part and it was prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents/Complainants supported the Orders passed by the Fora below.
We have heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Ray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/Opposite Party Contractor, Mr. Virendra Kumar Kashyap for the Respondents/Complainants, perused the Orders passed by the Fora below, the Complaints, the Written Statement and also other documents on record.
From the perusal of the material available on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are not acceptable for the simple reason that there is concurrent finding of the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Contractor as he had not done the bore-well mining again and not installed the submersible pump in the fields of the Respondents/Complainants in accordance with the prescribed guaranteed terms of the Scheme and Quotation.
The State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 15.09.2017 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Contractor by not doing bore-well mining again and not installing the submersible pump in the fields of the Respondents/Complainants in accordance with the prescribed guaranteed terms of the Scheme and Quotation. While passing the Impugned Orders dated 15.09.2017, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra] is reproduced as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. [MANU/SC/1120/2022 : (2022) 9 SCC 31] while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269” that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-
“7.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
For the reasons stated hereinabove and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Orders passed by the State Commission and the Impugned Orders dated 15.09.2017 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal Nos. FA/2017/401, FA/2017/402, FA/2017/403, FA/2017/404 & FA/2017/405, are upheld. Consequently, the present Revision Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.