M/s Laxmi Industries vs Ganeshilal Mandoli

Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member

This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (in short, ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1607 of 2013 dated 29.09.2015 arising out of order dated 23.07.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 630 of 2010.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner/opposite party, are that he sold a water pump to the respondent/complainant for Rs 72,000/- which was designed to pump 9,000 litres of water per hour without electricity or diesel power. The payment was made in two installments of Rs 55,000/- and Rs 27,000/- and the pump was installed. However, the pump failed to lift water to the respondent’s agricultural fields. The respondent approached the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 630 of 2010 seeking compensation of Rs 4,97,000/- under different heads. The petitioner herein contested the complaint on the ground that the requirement of a stop dam of 10 feet height had not been met by the respondent which led to the failure of the pump. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and held that there was no deficiency in service. Aggrieved, the respondent appealed before the State Commission which partly allowed the appeal and directed that the petitioner repay the amount of Rs 75,000/- to the respondent and the pump be returned to the petitioner. This order is impugned before this Commission on the ground that the water level in the stop dam was low from the very beginning.

The petitioner’s grounds for revision are that the order was without opportunity to him as he was placed ex parte without being served. It is averred that the pump was not proved to be defective and the impugned order is based on a mere technicality that the pump was not at the proper height despite the mechanic of the petitioner advising the respondent to make arrangements to raise the height of the dam to ensure a minimum level of 10 feet standing water.

The petitioner has stated that he has been manufacturing the Amber Hydrane pump which works on water pressure for the past 25 years. His mechanic had inspected the canal where the pump was proposed to be installed by the respondent and had advised that as the standing water was 5 feet in height, it should be increased to 10 feet since the respondent’s agricultural land was at a height. While this was not done, the respondent insisted that the pump be installed as a temporary arrangement with sand bags was made and a permanent dam would be constructed subsequently. Accordingly the pump was installed. The site was inspected on 20.06.2010 as a consequence of the repondent’s request in May 2010 and the water height in the dam was found to be 5 feet which did not ensure adequate pressure for the pump to work effectively. It is contended that there was no defect in the pump and that there was no complaint by the respondent till 21.05.2010. It is averred that there was no defect in the pump and the lack of pumping was due to the respondent not abiding by the condition of providing a 10 feet storage in the dam. Therefore the order of the State Commission is stated to be erroneous and is prayed to be set aside.

I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and carefully considered the material on record.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no defect in the pump and the dam height of the required height was not arranged by the respondent and therefore there was no deficiency in service. The relevant extract of the order is as below:

It is clear from the statement of the Complainant that there was no fault in the pump but the dam which was to be built for making the pump suitable for irrigation was not built by the Complainant and this is why no suitable use of the pump could be made. Hence, it is not proved that there was any kind of deficiency on the part of the services provided by the opposite party.

The State Commission, however, held as under:

The applicant admits that he already had stop dam of 5 feet height in the canal. He submits that he raised the height by using sandbags but the pump still did not work properly.

We have perused the pamphlet given by the respondent. It states that the pump will raise the water to 4-5 times the height of the damn and the minimum height of the dame should be 1 meter (3 ½ feet). In the appellant’s case, the height of the stop damn, as admitted by both the parties was 5 feet. Hence, the pump should have raised the water to the height of 20-25 feet. If the respondent required the height of the dam to be 10 feet, it follows that the field of the appellant must have been at a height of 40-50 feet above the canal. It is not the case of the respondent that the canal was in a gorge, 50 feet below the fields, which is why the pump did not function.

Even otherwise, if there was such a deep canal, then the mechanic, who examined the field should not have installed the pump at all and the respondent should have told him that it would not work. Had the pump been working properly, there would be no reason for the appellant to request the respondent to return it within 6 months of its purchase. In our view, the pamphlet is misleading and the facts have not been represented correctly.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the cost of the pump be refunded to the appellant. As regards the loss to the crop, we do not find any merit in the contention as there is no evidence of any loss. The appellant himself has said that he had to use alternative methods to irrigate his fields. Thus with alternative irrigation, his crop did not perish.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- to the appellant and the appellant shall return the pump to the respondent. No order as to costs.

While allowing the appeal, the State Commission has taken note of the claim of the petitioner as to the efficacy of the water pump and the failure of the pump when installed to provide the irrigation facilities promised. It has concluded that the pamphlet is misleading and the facts have not been represented correctly.

From the record, it is manifest that the petitioner had circulated pamphlets propagating the advantages of the pump in question and had stated that it would lift water from a nala/canal/river with standing water of 1 meter to an elevation of 5 times for irrigation. In other words, a head of approximately 3 feet 3 inches of water would enable lifting of water to approximately 15 feet. If the water in the existing dam was 5 feet, the water should have been lifted to a field at a height of 25 feet. It is not contended by the petitioner that the height of the respondent’s field was at a height of 50 feet from the dam site and therefore the standing water height of 5 feet was inadequate for the pump to lift it.

In view of the fact that the pump was promoted through the pamphlet by the petitioner to provide service of a certain standard and the fact that the installed pump failed to do so, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. The State Commission, being the first Court of appeal is the final Court of fact. In revisional jurisdiction, this Commission can interfere only if there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction or if the order is illegal or perverse and ignores a material fact. Being a Court of fact, the State Commission is required to consider the contentions made by the parties and arrive at a decision by recording reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. Reasons recorded by the State Commission enable this Commission to effectively exercise revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the reasons advanced by the State Commission are cogent and based on evidence before it. The revision petition is therefore liable to fail on this account.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any reason to warrant interference with the impugned order.  Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is affirmed and the revision petition is dismissed as being without merits.