VINDHYA PIPES AND PLASTICS LTD Vs. ANGREJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by M/s Vindhya Pipes and Plastics Ltd. which was opposite party before the District Forum challenging the order dated 1.8.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula whereby the State Commission dismissed the First Appeal No.118 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurushetra in complaint No.347 of 2006. The District Forum vide its order allowed the complaint filed by the three complainants who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein respectively in terms of the following directions:-

(2.) Delay of one day in filing this revision petition is condoned.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents/complainants who are agriculturists had purchased PVC pipes as well as other equipment from the OPs vide bills dated 9.5.2006 and 10.5.2006 for a total sum of Rs.87,500/- and Rs.20,600/- respectively. The complainants besides the purchase price of PVC pipes and other equipment purchased from the opposite parties, also spent about Rs.30,000/- for the purchase of Bajri, labour and transportation expenses for the boring purposes which failed. The grievance of the complainants before the District Forum was that the OPs had supplied defective pipes to them because on two occasions, when the process of boring was going on, the pipes got burst. As per the allegation, this all happened due to supply of defective PVC pipes by the OPs. Thus, attributing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainants invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum by lodging a consumer complaint. On the other hand, OPs resisted the claim of the complainants with the averment that the pipes supplied to the complainants were of good quality. It was submitted by opposite party Nos.1 & 2 that they were only traders of the pipes manufactured by OP No.3/petitioner and hence the cause of action qua manufacturing defect would lie against the manufacturer of the articles and not against the traders. It was also pleaded that the complaint was hit by section 13 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no manufacturing defect could be alleged until and unless the article in question were analyzed from a competent laboratory. In this context, it was also submitted by the OPs that the installation of a tubewell would involve a number of steps which required not only good quality of PVC pipes but a number of other material as well as expertise, all of which were crucial for successful outcome. In view of this and other submissions made before the District Forum, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.