ARUN RAMKRISHNA PAWADE Vs. SHARMAN PAINTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No. 703 of 2016 challenges the impugned order of learned Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, C/B at Nagpur ('the State Commission') dtd. 8/12/2015. Vide this order, the State Commission dismissed First Appeal No. A/07/249 and affirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur ('the District Forum') dtd. 11/1/2007.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant needed PVC pipes for irrigation of his agriculture land at village Salora, Dist. Wardha. The Respondent/Opposite Party (OP) deals in the PVC pipes. The Complainant approached the OP during April 2003 and Mr. Sharma and Mr. Patil, who were present in the OP's office advised him to purchase PVC pipes manufactured by the OP Therefore, the Complainant purchased 200 PVC pipes of 90 mm and 120 PVC pipes of 75mm @ Rs.123.00 and Rs.95.00 respectively and paid Rs.68,921.00 to OP. However, the OP issued a bill for 50% of the amount i.e. for Rs.36.138to save sales tax. The Complainant paid full payment of Rs.68.921 and tax to OP on 12/4/2004 and carried the pipes by truck No. MH27/A/3867 to his agriculture land. He then engaged labour to dig the pitch for pipeline. He later noticed that some 90 mm pipes are required. Therefore, on 26/4/2003 he purchased 22 pipes of 90 mm for Rs.5,067.00 from OP and installed the pipes during April 2003 by engaging labours and paid Rs.28,000.00 through contractors namely Shri Wasudeo Bagde and Gopinath Bagde. He paid Rs.7,000.00 for pasting and fitting of the pipeline in his land. Thereafter, he obtained permission from Sub-Divisional Engineer for electricity from MSEB and the supply was provided during Feb 2004. However, when he tried to charge the pipeline, they got cracked due to flow of water through them.

(3.) The Complainant contacted the OP about the same and, as per advice, he repaired some of the pipes. However, the pipes cracked at other places also. He requested OP from time to time to replace the defective pipes by those of superior quality or refund the amount paid. However, neither was done. The Complainant, therefore, had to purchase pipes worth Rs.73,390.00 on 10/2/2004 from another dealer and instal the same. Mr Patil and Mr Sharma had given guarantee of 10 years for the pipes but they were defective and of inferior quality. He issued legal notice dtd. 26/4/2010, which invoked no response. Therefore, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum against the OP seeking compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs, along with interest @ 20% p.a. from the date of the complaint till its realization and Rs.1,500.00 towards notice and cost of the complaint.