AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard Mr. Jeevan Prakash, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate, for opposite parties-1 &2, Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for opposite party-3 & 4 and Mr. Abhishek Gusain, Advocate, for the opposite party-5.
Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally to pay (i) Rs.39066708/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment, as compensation, for laying down sewer pipelines, replacement of damaged pipes, loss of reputation and goodwill and mental pain and agony, (ii) the cost of litigation; and (iii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case.
The complainants stated as follows:
(a) Vallabh Vidyanagar Borough Municipality (for short the municipality) was a statutory authority, constituted under Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The municipality invited tender for laying down sewer out fall rising main 400 mm & 315 mm PVC pipeline, in 7 KM long, in the year 1999. The work for laying down sewer out fall was in following steps, (i) excavation for pipeline, (ii) dewatering, (iii) refilling the excavated earth, (iv) supplying tested uPVC pipes, (v) Providing and fixing thrust blocks, (vi) providing and fixing reflux valves, (vii) providing and fixing sluice valves, (viii) providing and fixing double acting air valves, (ix) construction of valve chambers, (x) fixing tested magnetic flow meters, (xi) fixing submersible sewage pump sets, (xii) fixing electronic control system and (xiii) fixing electric generation set.
(b) The municipality accepted tender of M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel and executed an agreement on 20.10.1999, who sub-contracted with M/s. Shikhar Construction. M/s. Shikhar Construction took quotation from The Supreme Industries Limited for supply of 400 x 4 Kg., 2750 mtrs, 400 x 2.5 kg, 3270 mtrs and 315 x 2.5 kg, 3270 mts, with its coupler. The Supreme Industries Limited gave its quotation on 08.09.1999, clarifying that pipes would be confirming to IS 4985-1988 (not IS 4985-1995 as mentioned in the letter for quotation). M/s. Shikhar Construction placed order for supply of 400 x 4 Kg., and 400 x 2.5 kg, which was supplied by Supreme Industries Ltd.
(c) From chain-age 00 to 3300 mtrs-400mm x 4kg/cm2 and from chain-age 3300 to 7000 mtrs-400 x2.5 kg./cm2 sewage pipeline was laid down during November, 1999 to April, 2000. On 15.12.2000, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done from sub pump of Pulane company Chain-age 00 mtr. to chain-age 1200 mtrs., giving 0.2 kg to 0.6 kg pressure. During test, leakages were found at three places. It has been stated that in past also the pipes burst four times. The bursting was longitudinally. These proceedings were recorded in the minutes dated 15.12.2000.
(d) After completion of some more work, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done on 22.01.2001, in pipes chain-age 670 mtrs. and again several pipes were burst. On 14.02.2001, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done, in pipes chain-age 600 mtrs. and again burst in fifteen pipes were found. During 12.10.2000 to 08.06.2001, 28 pipes were burst, despite the pressure never reached one kg/sq. cm. Bottom side burst were longitudinally and crosswise burst were diagonal.
(e) The Supreme Industries Limited gave a fax message to M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd., its foreign collaborator, on 20.12.2000 pointing out bursting of the pipes. M/s. Shikhar Construction wrote a letter dated 22.12.2000 to The Supreme Industries Limited, in this respect. However, opposite party-4 did not accept manufacturing defect rather attributed reason of burst due to (i) pressure of back cotton soil, (ii) improper back filling, (iii) Less numbers of air valves and (iv) traffic load. The municipality took opinion of its expert JenJ consultant, who gave his report dated 30.04.2001, alleging manufacturing defects.
(f) M/s. Shikhar Construction wrote a letter dated 01.06.2001 to The Supreme Industries Limited to re-examine the issue and settle it. On which, a meeting was held on 08.06.2001 and it was decided to send a sample of burst pipe to The Supreme Industries Limited, for test. The municipality wrote a letter dated 10.06.2001 to The Supreme Industries Limited to replace the damaged pipes section. The Supreme Industries Limited again vide letter dated 11.06.2001, attributed the reasons for burst to improper compaction, less number of air valves at initial stages, time gap between first and second installation, induced stress developed in 4 kg pipes, non-availability of thrust blocks & bends at critical points. M/s. Shikhar Construction raised its objection to the letter dated 11.06.2001. The municipality raised an objection vide letter dated 30.06.2001. The municipality sent the sample of burst pipes for examination to Anu Lab, Agra on 19.07.2001. Then a meeting was held on 16.08.2001, in presence of representatives of opposite parties-3 and 4 and Reliance Industries, in which, it has been confirmed that there were no traffic load, at the place where pipes were burst and the burst pipes be changed. Anu Lab, Agra, after examination submitted its report dated 24.08.2001, in which it has been clearly mentioned that “improper processing during manufacturing of pipe is related to its low percentage elongation and vide variation in the values obtained from the specimen from failed section of pipe. However, this report was disputed that Anu Lab report did not bear the logo of National Accreditation Board For Testing & Calibration Laboratories.
(g) The municipality made a complaint to Bureau of Indian Standards, vide letter dated 10.07.2001. M/s. Shikhar Construction made a complaint to Bureau of Indian Standards that 30 pipes were burst as such The Supreme Industries Limited be directed to replace it. Joint Director, Bureau of Indian Standards, Ahmedabad held a meeting on 27.09.2001 and advised to send the sample of burst pipes to Bureau of Indian Standards. The municipality wrote a letter dated 03.09.2001 to Director, Bureau of Indian Standards, for physical verification of the damaged pipes. The Director, Bureau of Indian Standards wrote a letter dated 06.12.2001 to the municipality that he was taking the matter with Mumbai office to pursue the manufacturer at Jalgaon. Joint Director, Bureau of Indian Standards, Ahmedabad wrote a letter dated 04.01.2002 that the manufacturer had been advised to attend your grievance. Director, Bureau of Indian Standard, vide letter dated 29.05.2002, closed the complaint.
(h) The municipality wrote a letter dated 30.01.2002 to M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel to replace the burst pipes. M/s. Shikhar Construction wrote a letter dated 11.03.2002 to The Supreme Industries Limited to replace the damaged pipes. Chairman of the municipality along with various persons met with the officers of opposite party-4 on 16.04.2002, then they agreed to replace 32 damaged pipes. The Supreme Industries Limited wrote a letter dated 22.04.2002 to the municipality that it was ready to replace 700 m pipes provided all the pipes be withdrawn, cleaned thoroughly and delivered back with a bank draft of Rs.30000/-. 32 pipes and 64 couplers were supplied on 11.05.2002 to M/s. Shikhar Construction who returned the damaged pipes on 09.10.2002. The municipality gave a legal notice to M/s. Shikhar Construction to complete the work till 30.11.2002. M/s. Shikhar Construction, vide letter dated 22.11.2002 replied the notice that the pipeline was laid up to April, 2000. While charging, leakage was found in 400 mm pipes, which was decided to be replaced; as the manufacturer did not provide the pipes in time therefore replacement work has been delayed.
(i) M/s. Shikhar Construction wrote a letter dated 04.12.2002 to The Supreme Industries Limited that on testing of the replaced pipes, 4 leakages were again found as such send another lot of 32 pipes. The municipality wrote a letter dated 22.03.2003 to complainant-2, giving detail facts and requesting to help. Complainant-2 vide letters dated 22.03.2003 called for an explanation of The Supreme Industries Limited and other opposite parties. The Supreme Industries Limited gave a detailed reply vide letter dated 22.04.2003, stating that burst in the pipes were due to faulty designs, improper understanding of the project, failure to take precautions and carryout necessary works etc. Other opposite parties also gave their reply. Then a meeting was held on 05.06.2003, in which, The Supreme Industries Limited agreed to supply 128 pipes of 400 x 4 kg. Complainant-2 wrote another letter dated 05.07.2003 to opposite party-4 for the damages of Rs.25739928/-. The Supreme Industries Limited, vide letter dated 17.07.2003, denied for any damage. Complainant-2 wrote another dated 26.07.2003 to opposite party-4 for the damages of Rs.25739928/-. Then this complaint was filed on 03.02.2004.
M/s. Shikhar Construction (opposite party-2) filed its written reply on 01.02.2005, in which, material facts have not been denied. Opposite party-2 stated that the municipality appointed M/s. JenJ Consultants, Ahmedabad for planning, designing and supervising the work of laying down drainage pipelines running to 7 kms. The municipality also formed a committee of said consultant and senior engineers to study the project and form its outlines. This committee prescribed that “The PVC pipes should confirm to IS 4985-1995 and should be joined by solvent cement conforming to IS 14182-1994 and the type heavy bodied, having viscosity of 1600 mpa. The material of PVC pipe should have PE 80 as raw material. The pipe shall not have specific gravity of more than 1.45 and ash content should not be more than 7%. The contractor should produce the certificate of above quality parameters from the manufacturer of the pipe. The pipe should be of the quality equivalent to the pipe of Dutron, Supreme, Nocil or Jain. The pipes be got approved from the engineer/consultant of the VVNagar Municipality Borough before use”. These conditions were part of the tender notice. As such opposite party-2 purchased 400 x 4 Kg., and 400 x 2.5 kg, IS 4985-1988 from The Supreme Industries Ltd., with the certificate of the manufacturer, which was approved by the said committee. Entire work of excavation for pipeline, dewatering, supplying tested uPVC pipes, fixing thrust blocks, fixing reflux valves, fixing sluice valves, fixing double acting air valves, construction of valve chambers, laying down of pipeline and refilling the excavated earth were done under the supervision of the said committee. M/s. Shikhar Construction was started in 1985. It had major equipment and qualified professionals. All the norms prescribed by the said committee as well as “Users guide” supplied by opposite party-4 were fully followed. The work was completed within stipulated period. During commissioning and testing of the work, 400 x 4 Kg. pipes burst due to manufacturing defects and leakages were found. The Supreme Industries Limited was not ready to admit its fault for a long time and supplied 32 pipes on 11.05.2002, then it were replaced. Its replacement took time. There was no deficiency in service on its part.
Bureau of Indian Standards (opposite party-5) filed written reply on 15.02.2005. Bureau of Indian Standards stated that the municipality itself had prescribed for supply of uPVC pipe of IS mark 4985 of 1995, in the tender form. There was no such IS mark at the time of tender. IS mark 4985:1988 was prescribed for potable water supply. IS mark 4985-1988 was amended in 1995 and 2000 but 1995 mark was enforced with effect from 27.09.2001. Clause-1.4 of Amendment No.4 in IS 4985:1988, clearly stated that a separate specification was under preparation detailing the use of uPVC pipes of nominal diameter 99 mm and above and of class 3 (6kg/cm2 and above) may be used for sewerage application. These marks were not available at the time of tender. The municipality wrongly decided for laying down uPVC pipe of IS mark 4985-1995 for sewer carriage. On the receipt of the complaint of the municipality, Bureau of Indian Standards investigated the matter and found that the municipality and its consultants were wrong in inviting the tender of uPVC pipe IS mark 4985-1995 which were for potable water. Relying upon the judgment of this Commission in First Appeal No.326 of 1992 E. Sadanandan Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, decided on 26.07.1994, it has been stated that Bureau of Indian Standards is not a service provider and complaint against it not maintainable.
Anand Tradelines Private Ltd. and The Supreme Industries Ltd. filed their joint written reply on 16.08.2004. They have stated that The Supreme Industries Ltd. was a manufacturer of PVC related product with technical collaboration with M/s. Wavin Overseas, the world leader in PVC pipes and was accredited to ISO-9000-2000 TUV certificate specifications. IS 4985 specification was firstly issued in 1968 and then modified in 1981, 1988 and 2000. The municipality in the tender notice has given specification of pipe that of Dutron, Supreme, Nocil or Jain. It has been denied that opposite parties -3 and 4 have ever represented the municipality or its technical advisor for using of its pipe. The tender was manifestly in complete ignorance and lack of knowledge in respect of specification of the pipe. The tender notice further stated that material of PVC pipe should be PE-80 as raw material although PE-80 (polyethylene) is totally different characteristics and cannot be raw material for PVC pipe. M/s. JenJ. Consultants and the team of Engineers appointed by the municipality were incompetent to handle the project. Due to their incompetency in knowledge, supervision and installation of the pipeline, the pipes were burst. The municipality and its consultant M/s. JenJ. Consultants have wrongly selected the pipe of IS mark 4985-1988 for sewer pipe line. Opposite parties-3 & 4 had no role in selection of the pipe for sewer pipeline. M/s. Shikhar Construction gave a quotation for supply of uPVC pipe ISI 4985-1995 i.e. 400 x 4 Kg., 2750 mtrs, 400 x 2.5 kg, 3250 mtrs and 315 x 2.5 kg, 3250 mts. In pursuance of that quotation, The Supreme Industries Ltd. gave its offer, vide letter dated 08.09.1999. In this letter, it has been clarified that the pipe would be supplied conforming to IS 4985-1988 with free coupler with each 6 meter length. M/s. Shikhar Construction accepted final price as mentioned in letter dated 08.09.1999 and placed the order by a subsequent letter, then total 1182 pipes, confirming IS mark 4985-1988, were supplied during September, 1999 to October, 1999, along with printed book-let relating instructions for adopting safety measure, in transporting, handling and using the pipes. M/s. Shikhar Construction directly made payment of Rs.6278320/- to The Supreme Industries Ltd. for supply of the pipes. The work of installation of pipe lines of 2.5 kg. commenced in November, 1999 and completed in January, 2000 and then installation of pipe lines of 4.0 kg. commenced in February, 2000 and completed in April, 2000. Entire pipeline was commissioned in October, 2000. It has been denied that prior to October, 2000 or on 15.12.2000, any pressure test of the pipe line was conducted, in presence of the representatives of opposite parties-3 and 4. As soon as the complaint relating to bursting of pipes was received, opposite party-4 referred the complaint to M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd., the foreign collaborator, through fax dated 20.12.2000, who gave its opinion relating to bursting of the pipe vide email dated 21.12.2000 and letter dated 19.02.2001. Opposite parties -1 & 2 did not follow the guidelines as given in the user guide nor they followed the instructions of M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd. M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd. clearly stated that the real causes of bursting of pipe were inadequate of backfilling coupled with chemical reaction of excessive application of cement solvent and joints of the pipes. Under Clause 7 of the Technical Details of Pipe Line, “Joints” has been shown as “Thrust blocks provided as per design at every angle at change of directions”, whereas joints were to be made by solvent solutions which was standard procedure. Thus, the thrust blocks as joints would show that the lack of technical know-how. The damage could have been caused in handling the pipe by the labour. Pipe of 4Kg/sq.cm2. remained kept for about four months in supervision of M/s. Shikhar construction. Letter dated 01.06.2011 by M/s. Shikhar Construction was merely an attempt to save their skin. It has been denied that Anu Lab was an accredited lab by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratory or was competent to carry out the tests of the pipes. The test report did not carry NABL logo. The presence of opposite parties-3 and 4 in other meetings have been denied. The crux of the report of Anu Lab was due to faulty processing and use of defective raw materials, which resulted in failure of these pipes. Total 1182 pipes were supplied, out of which 30 pipes were found allegedly defective and burst. If the faulty processing and defective raw material were the reason for burst, then the other pipes would have also burst. Diametral deflection of a pipe is for 80% relates to installation quality and less than 10% relates to stiffness of pipe. Anu Lab has conducted test on the sample of broken pipe as sent by the municipality and not in any other on unbroken pipe. Length of 2 meters was insufficient for impact test, reversion and hydraulic test as these tests required minimum 2.5 meters length. A report shows that the impact test was carried as per specification IS 4985-2000. Test like vical softening temperature, sulphated ash content, flattening and acetone immersion were completely foreign to IS 4985-1988 specification, as such report of Anu Lab is not relevant. M/s. Shikhar Construction in its letter dated 20.06.2002 accepted its faults in handling and installing the pipes. The Supreme Industries Ltd. supplied 32 pipes with 64 coupler, free of charge on 11.05.2002, on expenditure of Rs.377800/-. It was not due to admission of defects in pipes by opposite party-4. Receipt of letter dated 09.10.2002 has been denied. Two postal registration receipts filed as service proof of letter dated 09.10.2008 were in fact pertains to letter dated 27.09.2001 written by M/s. Shikhar Construction to Director Bureau of Indian Standards. Postal registration receipt No.194 was addressed to M/s. A.S.Basu, Bureau of Indian Standards, Mumbai. Postal receipt No.195 was addressed to J.M. Totla, The Supreme Industries Ltd., Mumbai. The complainant has fabricated the papers in order to show false service. Due to undue pressure and in order to buy peace, opposite party-4 magnanimously agreed to supply four trucks pipes vide letter dated 25.06.2003.
The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply to Written Reply of opposite party-2, Rejoinder Reply to Written Reply of opposite party-5 and Rejoinder Reply to Written Reply of opposite party-3 and 4. The complainants filed Affidavit of Evidence of Mahendra Bhai Patel (Ex-President of the municipality), Affidavit of Evidence of Jayu Bhai Patel (President of complainant-2), Corrigendum Affidavit of Mahendra Bhai Patel, Corrigendum Affidavit of Jayu Bhai Patel, Affidavit of Evidence of R.B. Singh, Chief Coordinator of Anulab, Supplementary Affidavit of Evidence of R.B. Singh, Affidavit of Evidence of Dexaben P. Patel (President of municipality), Corrigendum Affidavit of Dexaben P. Patel and documentary evidence. Additional documentary evidence showing fresh tender was given for laying down same sewer pipeline.
M/s. Shikhar Construction (opposite party-2) filed Affidavit of Evidence of Ashvinbhai Vadilal Sah. Bureau of Indian Standard (opposite party-5) filed Affidavit of Evidence of Alok Singh. Opposite parties-3 and 4 filed Affidavit of Evidence of V.S. Krishnan, Technical Advisor of opposite party-4, Affidavit of Evidence of Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten, Technology Transfer Coordinator of Wavin Overseas BV, Holland, Affidavit of Evidence of P.K. Chandak, Commercial Manager and Affidavit of Evidence of G.S. Dikondawar, Senior Manager (Marketing & Technology) of opposite party-4 and documentary evidence.
I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Bureau of Indian Standards (opposite party-5) was discharging its statutory function under Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986. This Commission in First Appeal No.326 of 1992 E. Sadanandan Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, decided on 26.07.1994, held that Bureau of Indian Standards was not a service provider. As such no relief can be granted against opposite party-5 in this complaint.
Opposite part-2 took the plea that in the tender notice, the municipality had prescribed the standard of the pipe and brand of the manufacturer company. Opposite part-2 purchased pipes of The Supreme Industries Limited i.e. prescribed brand. So far as IS prescription was concerned, opposite party-4 informed that IS 4985:1988 was available, which was purchased. At the time of supply of the pipes, the manufacturer also supplied a certificate, relating to specifications, User Guide containing detail instructions for handling and laying down the pipeline. These pipes were approved by the engineer/consultant of the Municipality before use. Entire work of excavation for pipeline, dewatering, supplying tested uPVC pipes, fixing thrust blocks, fixing reflux valves, fixing sluice valves, fixing double acting air valves, construction of valve chambers, laying down of pipeline and refilling the excavated earth were done under the supervision of the said committee of the municipality. There was no deficiency in service on its part. Ashvinbhai Vadilal Shah, in his Affidavit of Evidence has stated that he had executed the work under supervision of the experts of the municipality. In the Rejoinder Reply, the complainants did not raise any further dispute against opposite party-2. However, opposite parties-3 and 4 attribute deficiency in service to opposite party-2.
The allegations of opposite parties-3 and 4 that M/s. JenJ. Consultants and the team of Engineers appointed by the municipality were incompetent to handle the project and due to their incompetency in knowledge, supervision and installation of the pipeline, the pipes were burst; the municipality and its consultant M/s. JenJ. Consultants wrongly selected the pipe of IS mark 4985-1995 for sewer pipe line; opposite parties-3 & 4 had no role in selection of the pipe for sewer pipeline, are concerned, opposite parties-3 and 4 have filed copy of Pamphlet (Page-25 of their reply), in which, at Serial No.1 “Supreme U-PVC S.W.R. Drainage System” has been mentioned. In the User Guide (page-36 of their reply) S.W.R. Drainage System has been mentioned. From these documents, it is proved that opposite party-4 was manufacturing uPVC pipes for drainage system in the year 1999. Even if in tender notice, wrong specifications were mentioned but opposite party-4 supplied uPVC pipes, manufactured for drainage system. Opposite party-4 also gave certificate, relating to specifications, User Guide containing detail instructions for handling and laying down the pipeline to opposite party-2, along with supply of the pipes. As such mistakes in tender notice relating to specifications of the pipes and its manufacturing ingredients have no effect as opposite party-4 had supplied the pipes manufactured for sewer line, along with certificate.
The municipality formed a team of M/s. JenJ Consultant and Senior Engineers of the municipality for planning, designing and supervising the entire work of the project of laying down sewer pipeline. M/s. JenJ Consultant was headed by Prof. J.N. Joshi, Shri Somenath Chowdhury of Institute of Science & Technology For Advanced Studies & Research, Vallabh Vidyanagar. Apart from Senior Engineers of the municipality, Ashvinbhai Vadilal Sah, proprietor of M/s. Shikhar Construction had degree of B.E. (Civil) in 1982 and had major equipment and qualified professionals. At the time of execution of the project work, he had Users Guide as supplied by opposite party-4. Opposite party-4 took plea that the pipes were burst due to incompetency in knowledge, supervision and installation of the pipeline, of the team of the municipality and opposite party-2. According to the complainants and opposite party-2, the pipes were burst due to manufacturing defects.
Opposite party-4 denied pressure tests of the pipes in presence of its representative or opposite party-3. V.S. Krishnan, in his Affidavit of Evidence has stated that entire pipeline was commissioned in the month of October, 2000 and when faults in the line occurred, the meeting dated 15.12.2000 had taken place. The meeting dated 15.12.2000 was attended by Manoj Bhai and G.S. Dikondawar, representatives of opposite parties-3 and 4. G.S. Dikondawar, in his Affidavit of Evidence stated that the pipes were bursting longitudinally and from the broken pipe, it was noticed that cracks were developed along straight line for some portion. The Supreme Industries Limited gave a fax message to M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd., its foreign collaborator, on 20.12.2000 pointing out bursting of the pipes. Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten in his fax message dated 21.12.2000 stated as follows:-
“Dear Mr. Totla,
With reference to your fax of December 20th, concerning the pipe failures in 400mm 4 Kg/cm2 PVC pipes, I anticipate the following cause for these failures occurring after installation.
First I presume that as jointing technique the solvent cement welding is applied.
Second I presume that these joints were made in the trench and that the pipe has been back filled shortly after welding.
Thirdly that the pipes were empty and after each day were capped off in order to prevent small animals such as rodents etc. entering the pipe.
If above conditions were present, then following occurs:
In the pipe the solvent vapors of the solvent cement accumulate.
By backfiling, the pipes will be subjected to deformation, inducing tensile stresses in the crown and bottom line of the inside pipe surface. The solvent of the PVC solvent cement are known to be very stress crack sensitive for PVC.
During the empty period of the pipe, already crazing occurs in both bottom and top line and when later filled, and pressure tested, these crazes will start to grow into cracks. When one crack has become instable, or in other words has become critical, the pipe will suddenly burst, whereby the crack will run through other nearly critical cracks/crazes, which are predominantly present in top or bottom. This explains why you found cracks running in axial direction, not following spider lines and occurs at relative low pressures.
If you take microtome samples perpendicular toe the pipe axis out of the pipe wall from the top and bottom, you might see under a microscope on the inside crazing and or micro cracks. Sometimes these can already be seen visually with the naked eye.
I experienced once such a situation and therefore our advice is to use always rubber seal joints.
In case solvent cement joints are used, above problem can be prevented by immediately filling and flushing the pipe with water, so that the solvent vapour cannot start to attack the PVC under stresses, or to forcibly ventilate the pipe for many hours.
I am aware that this is not very good news, please feel free to contact me in case above sketched situation was not apparent.
I wish you and all your colleagues a merry Christmas and happy New Year.
Best regards
Jan Van Nes.”
The Supreme Industries Limited sent the sample of the burst pipe to M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd. Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten, who after examination of sample, submitted his report vide email dated 19.02.2001 as follows:-
“Dear Mr. Totla,
The pipe samples you have sent to Jan Van Nes have been carefully studied by us and we have come to the following conclusions:
The failure is caused by the stress corosion phenomenon. PVC and other thermoplastic materials which are subjected to a combination of aggressive chemicals and stresses can fail with a high speed propagating crack. As soon as one of the two from the combination is no longer present the cracks stop.
A crack caused by spider plate defects or insufficient gelation will propagate over much longer lengths.
There are now two assumptions possible:
In case the Jointing technique is rubber ring joints the pipe has been subjected to a discharge of aggressive chemicals or solvents during or immediately after the installation of the pipeline.
The stresses in the pipe come from inadequate installation. In most cases stresses occur due to improper or non-compacted backfill.
When solvent cemented joints are applied the aggressive chemicals can often be traced back to the solvents of the glue, which form an aggressive vapour inside the pipe. Remember that you indicate that the cracks appear to be developing from the inside of the pipe. Removal of the glue-bead on the inside of the pipe is frequently forgotten. The solvents vapourize slowly creating an aggressive atmosphere inside the pipe. Locally poor backfilling could be the rest.
Both phenomenae have been observed in Europe and are therefore not hypothetical.
The above mechanism can be checked by observing the spot of the crack initiation. Very small black stripes can indicate crazes, whereby one of these stripes has developed into an actual crack through the pipe wall.
In conclusion one can say that the failures are most likely not caused by a processing defect, but by stress corrosion due to inadequate backfilling in combination with chemical attack. We would appreciate if you could inform on which of the two above assumptions is applicable and, if appropriate, on the possible outcome of further local investigation.
With kind regards
Wavin Overseas BV
Bob Van Houten”
Prof. J.N. Joshi, vide email dated 27.02.2001, made query from Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten that if solvent vapour was responsible for cracks in pipe, why the cracks occurred at the bottom of the pipes. Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten replied vide email dated 07.03.2001 as follows:-
“Dear Mr. Joshi,
In reply of your E-mail the following
Stress cracking (through the process of crazing) always is initiated at those spots having the highest induced tensile stresses. The fact that cracking did not occur in the region of the joints, can be explained that due to the higher ring stiffness at the joint, the induced deflection and thus induced tensile stress in that region was less than in the middle of the pipes.
The fact that cracks appeared in the bottom of the pipe and not in the top is related to two reasons: 1- the vapour of the solvent is heavier than air and thus creates a higher concentration at the bottom and 2- the pipe bottom can be deformed more than the rest of the pipe circumference. This can be explained by the fact that the pipe installed on a flat trench bottom, of which the surface had not been loosened, creating a “soft” bed in which the pipe is laid. Although the differences in induced stresses around the circumference in the pipe can be relatively low, still the stress, cracking starts at the points of highest tensile stresses and highest concentration of solvent vapour.
the fact that only pipes of 4 kg/cm2 have been affected and not the 2.5 kg/cm2 can be explained that the amount diametral deflection of a pipe is for 80% related to installation quality and only for less than 10% of pipe stiffness. This means that due to installation quality both pipe classes are more or less deflected to the same deformation. The 2.5 kg/cm2 pipe class will therefore have a lower induced tensile stress in the internal surface and thus a reduced chance of stress cracking.
Again it must be stated that I have experienced above problem in practice. This is the main reason for not advising a solvent cement joint in underground applications, unless the pipe is continuously forced ventilated, or immediately flushed with water before the backfill is applied. Therefore the rubber seal joint is the preferred joining technique for underground applications.
Furthermore, mostly too much solvent cement is applied in the socket part of the joint, resulting in an excess of solvent cement in the inside of the pipe, which cannot be removed. Please check if this has been the case in the failed pipeline as well.
A good solvent cement joint can be achieved by applying very thinly solvent cement in the socket and very richly on the pipe end. When pushing the pipe end into the socket, all excess of solvent cement will be pushed to the extremity of the joint on the outside and must be removed immediately.
Trust my advises/observations are of help to clarify what you unfortunately have experienced.
With kind regards
Wavin Overseas BV
Bob van Houten”
Installation Guide as supplied by The Supreme Industries Limited provides “Solvent Types Joints”, which provides that coating of solvent cements should be applied using a flat clean brush evenly on the inside of the fitting/socket mouth for full length of insertion and then thicker layer on outside of the pipe and up to the marked line. For hot and dry climate thicker coating should be applied. From this procedure it is clear that solvent cement is applied on outer layer of the pipe and in inner side of socket. There was no chance of applying excess quantity of solvent cement inside the pipes. Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten did not make any physical verification to confirm that excess solvent cements have been applied at the joints where the pipes had cracked. For the reasons best known to him, he did not make chemical examination test of the samples pipes, to find out manufacturing defects. He again and again observed that chemical vapour accumulated inside the pipes created pressure, due to which, the fractures in pipes were caused. I failed to understand the reasons assigned by Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten as the pressure of vapour would only be in upward or downward side and the pressure would not be diverted in the empty sides of the pipes. Air valves were already fixed at the requisite distances, from where chemical vapour would pass on without damaging the pipes.
Opposite party-4, itself has not accepted these reports of Jan Anne (“Bob”) Van Houten and in its letter dated 11.06.2001, gave almost different reasons for burst of the pipes, which are as follows:-
“To
The Administrator
Vallabhvidhyanagar Nagar Palika
TA & Dist. Anand
Dear Sir,
Please find attached herewith papers pertaining to 400x4KG pipe supply.
From the attached details it is quite clear that failure in pipes is due to many factors viz improper compaction, less number of air valves at initial stages, time gap between first and second installation, induced stress developed in 4 KG pipes, non-availability of thrust blocks & bends at critical points etc.
We feel if above points are taken care of very thoroughly, entire problem will be solved as in pipeline layout is as important as quality of pipe too.
Hence please expedite the data
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Manoj Dhar
Sales Manager
CC: M/s. Shikhar Construction-For your kind action”
The municipality vide its letter dated 30.06.2001 raised its protest to the letter dated 11.06.2001. In the meeting held on 16.08.2001, in presence of representatives of opposite parties-3 and 4 and Reliance Industries, it has been verified that there were no traffic load, at the places where pipes were burst. The municipality sent the sample of burst pipes for examination to Anu Lab, Agra on 19.07.2001. Anu Lab, Agra, after examination, submitted its report dated 24.08.2001, in which it has been clearly mentioned that “improper processing during manufacturing of pipe is related to its low percentage elongation and vide variation in the values obtained from the specimen from failed section of pipe”. This report was disputed only on the ground that Anu Lab report did not bear the logo of National Accreditation Board For Testing & Calibration Laboratories. Opposite party-4 did not obtain any report from an independent lab, in respect of manufacturing defects, although sample of burst pipes were supplied to it. If the cracks in pipes had come due to low backfilling then longitudinal fracture were not possible rather fracture would be crosswise.
During pendency of the complaint, the municipality again obtained fresh report of Anu Lab, Agra dated 18.10.2006, attaching the logo of National Accreditation Board For Testing & Calibration Laboratories and filed along with Supplementary Affidavit of Evidence of Dr. R.B. Singh, in which, again manufacturing defects in burst pipes has been reported. Opposite party-4 did not file any evidence to rebut this report nor cross-examined Dr. R.B. Singh. From this report, it is proved that burst pipes supplied by opposite party-4 suffered from manufacturing defects. As such defects in goods supplied by opposite party-4 has been proved.
The complainants, in paragraph-13 of the complaint, has stated that total payment of Rs.9559933/- was made to M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel (opposite party-1) of this work. This fact has been admitted by opposite party-2. As such due to supply of the pipes suffering from manufacturing defects, the municipality has suffered a loss of Rs.9559933/-. Including other expenses, the loss can be rounded to Rs. one crore. The municipality filed Additional Documentary Evidence along with Corrigendum Affidavit of Daxa Ben Patel on 02.03.2006, showing that fresh tender was invited for laying down same sewer pipeline as sewer pipeline as laid earlier could not successfully work. The municipality has suffered total loss of laying down sewer pipeline as done in the year 1999-2000.
O R D E R
In result, the complaint is party allowed with cost of Rs.2/- lacs. The Supreme Industries Limited (opposite part-4) is directed to pay Rs.one crore with interest @9% per annum from May, 2000 till the date of payment to Municipal Borough Vallabh Vidyanagar (complainant-1) within two months from the date of delivery of this judgment.