PATEL ENGINEERING CO Vs. PATEL NANAJIBHAI KHODABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That the original opponents have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the decision of the order of the District Forum, Junagadh dated 6.12.1991. The short facts that lead to this appeal inter-alia are as under :

(2.) The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint alleging that he was possessing agricultural land and has purchased PVC pipelines from the appellant (opponent) for taking water from his well to various parts in his field. Originally the complainant has stated that he went to Bagasara on 25.11.88 for purchasing the pipelines and he purchased Jolly brand 4 Kg. PVC pipelines @ Rs.36/-. He alleged to have made a contract for 999 mts. pipeline and paid Rs.36,964/- to the opponent. Thereafter, on 29.11.88 the opponent sent pipelines to the complainant at night time whereas the complainant asked for the bill of the pipes from the truck driver which was not given to him. The complainant started fitting the pipes in his field and after the fittings have been made he started flowing water for the purpose of irrigating his fields and according to the complainant the pipes started breaking and, therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party at Bagasara immediately and the opposite party promised to send his mechanic to the complainant's field within a day or two who will repair the same. When he examined the pipelines, it was found that it did not possess the Jolly trade mark and, therefore, he again went to the opposite party at Bagasara. Again, the complainant was promised that the concerned person will examine the same at his fields and as a matter of fact on the next day persons from Paramount Company visited the complainant and informed him that the pipelines having fitted at a long distance the same will not be serviceable. They promised that if the complainant comes to Bagasara they will understand the account and had also promised that the same will be changed. However, when the complainant again demanded to change the pipelines the opposite party has not given proper reply and this way the complainant has suffered damages on account a cheating.

(3.) The summons were served on the opposite party and the opposite party has denied the allegations of the complainant. They have further stated that they had served a notice dated 25.9.89 demanding Rs.7670/- for the other PVC pipes and fittings etc. which the complainant had not given. The complainant had replied to that notice and, thereafter, the opposite party has filed a civil suit against the complainant registered as civil suit No.33/90 for Rs.7640/- plus interest. In order to get away from the liability of payment of some PVC pipes and materials a false complaint has been filed by the complainant.