AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIDE Order dated 3.12.2002 the Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 500.00 as compensation in favour of the complainant with the direction to the opposite to pay the same within one month from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this order the complainant has appealed. He submits that the amount of compensation is too inadequate. So he prays for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
THE complainant alleges unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. He purchased two coils of PVC pipe for concealed wiring for a sum of Rs. 945.00 from the shop of the opposite party on 28.5.2001 and 11.11.2001. THE said pipe was laid in the roof and some portion of it was hanging by the walls leading to switchboard. During the inner plaster he noticed that the PVC pipe broke off from the roof dislodging the concealed wiring. He brought it to the notice of the opposite party but to no effect. So he approached the Forum seeking compensation of Rupees one lac for supplying inferior quality of PVC pipe. The opposite party contested the case by filing a written version wherein the allegation of supplying inferior quality of PVC pipe was denied. According to him the quality of PVC pipe was according to the equivalent price prevalent at the relevant time. So, he prayed for the dismissal of the case.
The Forun found that the pipe sold by OP was a defective one but observed that it would cause damage to the roof is a mere apprehension. There is no material that the roof was damaged due to lying of PVC pipe or the roof would be damaged for laying of the same. No expert evidence has been put forward to substantiate the allegation about the apprehension of the complainant. So the Forum rejected the claim for compensation for want of proper evidence. However the Forum awarded a sum of Rs. 500.00 as compensation in favour of the complainant on the ground that the said pipe was found to be brittle. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that various qualities of PVC pipe are sold in the market and their prices vary according to the quality. The complainant has chosen a variety which is not that much superior quality as the complainant expects. Here again we find no material to see what quality of PVC pipe was purchased by the complainant. Therefore, considering the facts and substances of the case we think that the award of compensation of Rs. 500.00 was quite justified. We see no necessity of increasing the amount of compensation. In the result, the appeal fails and be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.