POLYSIL PIPES Vs. MAHESH SISODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the revision petitions challenge a common impugned order of the State Commission and hence are taken up together. These have been filed by the two opposite parties, who are manufacturer and local dealer/supplier of the pipes and other related material. Two complainants, in this case, namely, S/Shri Mahesh Sisodia and Bhagwan Singh Sisodia lodged a consumer complaint with the District Forum to the effect that the pipes supplied by the petitioner-company (M/s. Polysil Pipes) through the petitioner-dealer (M/s. Jay Traders) showed leakage of water on various points. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings of the parties, while directing the petitioners to replace the pipes also burdened the petitioners to pay cost of the pipes. On the matter being carried by the two petitioners before the State Commission in appeal challenging the order of the District Forum, the State Commission vide its impugned order dated 12.11.2009 removed the apparent error in the judgment of the District Forum by maintaining the basic finding of the District Forum about the replacement of pipes and clarifying that it is only in the event that the pipes are not changed within a month, the petitioner shall pay Rs. 1,36,000 and interest as directed by the District Forum. The ground taken by the petitioner is that the State Commission has erred in not noticing that that District Forum concluded about the low quality and manufacturing defects in the pipes supplied by the petitioners without obtaining any technical inspection report from the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Technology (CIPET), Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Govt. of India, Bhopal. It is submitted by the petitioners that the Fora below have overlooked the opinion of the Commissioner in which it was specifically opined that the pipes in question be sent to a mechanical laboratory/ technical institute for testing their quality and/ or manufacturing defect. It is also submitted that the Fora below have failed to appreciate that the damages caused to the said pipes were due to negligence on the part of the respondents in fitting the same for which the petitioners could not be held liable to compensate.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Uday Shanker Khator, Advocate for the petitioners/opposite parties and Mrs. A. Subhashini, Advocate for the respondents/complainants. We find that both the Fora below have returned their concurrent finding in favour of the complainants while unsuiting the defence of the petitioners and holding them liable for deficiency in service in supplying the pipes which were found to be defective. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Superintending Engineer from P.H.E.D., who was appointed as Local Commissioner by the District Forum, is not technically qualified to determine the alleged inherent manufacturing defects in the pipes supplied by the petitioners and hence the Fora below erred in relying on the Commissioner's report without referring the goods in question for testing in a suitable laboratory or technical institute to confirm the alleged defects. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners have not taken objection or filed any affidavit against the observations made by the Local Commissioner in his inspection report. In any case, it has been observed by the District Forum in its detailed order that by its very nature the alleged defects were quite apparent and the same have been confirmed during the inspection of the Local Commissioner as well. In view of this, it was not necessary to refer the matter for testing to a laboratory because the defects were so glaring and the leakage made it impossible to use the pipes for the purpose for which they had been purchased by the petitioners from the respondents. Keeping in view the nature of defects pointed out in the complaint and the fact that the same were duly confirmed during the inspection carried out by Local Commissioner, we do not find any force in the contention raised now by the Counsel for the petitioners. The District Forum has dealt with the issues in great detail it its order, which has been duly upheld by the State Commission. There is no other issue involved in the matter. The apparent anomaly in the order of the District Forum has already been set right by the State Commission through its impugned order, which now does not call for any interference by us in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances, the revision petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs.