M/S. Atul Pipe Corporation vs Jai Narain & 4 Ors.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.07.2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 984/2015, "Atul Pipe Corporation versus Jai Narain & Ors.", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 03.11.2015, passed by the District Forum, Kurukshetra in consumer complaint No. 400/2002, filed by the present respondent-1/complainant Jai Narain, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

As stated by the complainant Jai Narain in his consumer complaint no. 400/2002, he received a loan of Rs. 67,000/- from the Primary Land Development Bank (PLDB), Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Haryana under the 'Underground Pipeline Scheme'. The said Bank issued a bank draft of Rs. 44,880/- in favour of the petitioner/opposite party (OP) No. 1 Atul Pipe Corporation through OP-5, the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra, through whom, 25% subsidy amount was to be awarded to the complainant. The said draft was paid to the petitioner/OP-1 for the purchase of 120 RCC pipes, 12" in diameter with rubber rings. It is alleged that the petitioner/OP-1 supplied only 108 pipes against the order of 120 pipes. Four of the pipes supplied were broken, meaning thereby that there was shortfall of 16 pipes in the supply made by the petitioner. Moreover, the pipes were made of substandard material. The supply of the pipes was made @187/- per mtr., whereas such pipes were available in the open market at Rs. 100/- per mtr. and in this manner, excess amount was charged by the petitioner in the transaction. Alleging that he had suffered loss of Rs. 20,000/- for substandard supply of pipes and further Rs. 16,750/- as loss of subsidy and Rs. 2 lakh as loss of crops and Rs. 2,992/- for less supply of pipes, the complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,622/- to him and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner/OP-1 by filing a written statement before the District Forum, saying that there was oral contract between the parties for the supply of 108 pipes only, and after rendition of accounts, a sum of Rs. 4,404/- had been refunded to the complainant in cash. There was no contract with regard to the rubber rings. The petitioner denied that 4 of the pipes were broken. The petitioner also denied that the pipes were available in the open market @₹100 per mtr. The petitioner requested that the consumer complaint should be dismissed.

The District Forum vide order dated 03.11.2015, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs. 14,400/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. The District Forum held that no compensation was payable by OP-2 to 5 which were authorities of the State Government. The petitioner/OP-1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,404/- to the complainant for short supply of pipes and, in addition a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service. In this way, the District Forum directed payment of Rs. 14,400/- alongwith interest @10% p.a. till realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide the impugned order, the petitioner/OP-1 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During hearing before us, the Regional Soil Conservation Officer of the Government of Haryana, Dr. O.P. Godara was called for seeking clarification on the facts of the case. It was stated by him that the order placed on the petitioner/OP-1 was for the supply of 120 pipes only. As against this, the petitioner supplied only 108 pipes. Four of these pipes were found to be broken. There was, therefore, a shortfall of 16 pipes, for which the petitioner was liable to refund the necessary amount.

The authorised representative of the petitioner stated that the District Forum at Kurukshetra had no jurisdiction to decide the consumer complaint, rather the jurisdiction is at Bhiwani. The authorised representative, however, could not offer any satisfactory explanation about the shortfall in the supply of pipes.

The complainant who was present in person stated that there was shortfall in the supply of pipes and moreover, the pipes were made of substandard material.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

As duly explained by the Regional Soil Conservation Officer during hearing before us, an order was placed upon the petitioner for the supply of 120 pipes to the complainant under the 'Underground Pipeline Scheme'. The petitioner/OP-1 had been declared as approved source for the supply of said pipes by the concerned authority. As against the order, the petitioner supplied only 108 pipes, out of which four pipes were found to be broken. In the written version filed by the petitioner before the District Forum, it has been stated that only 108 pipes were supplied to the complainant by the petitioner, although a sum of Rs. 44,880/- was received by them from the Bank. The petitioner has denied that 4 pipes were broken, but they have not been able to provide any explanation to refute the assertion of the complainant as well as the Government agencies that the order had been placed for the supply of 120 pipes. Both the consumer fora below found the petitioner/OP-1 deficient in service for the short supply of pipes, therefore.

In so far as issue of territorial jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner is concerned, it has been brought out during arguments that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to supply the said pipes to the complainant on the spot, i.e., in District Kurukshetra. It is obvious, therefore, that the cause of action arose in District Kurukshetra and hence, the District Forum in Kurukshetra District was competent to decide the consumer complaint in question.

It may further be stated that the petitioner stated in their written submissions that after the rendition of accounts, they had refunded a sum of Rs. 4,404/- to the complainant in cash and nothing more was payable to him. It is evident from their own assertion that there was shortfall in the supply of pipes, as held by the consumer fora below for which a sum of Rs. 4,404/- was payable to the complainant. Since the petitioner has not been able to provide any proof in support of his contention that they had made payment of Rs. 4,404/- to the complainant, the consumer fora below rightly concluded that the said sum was payable to the complainant. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded by the District Forum, which was upheld by the State Commission.

Based on the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the consumer fora below and the same are upheld. This revision petition is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.