AJAY KUMAR KOHLI Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Complaint No. 87 of 1998, Shri H.G. Vasudeva who was the complainant before the State Commission has filed this appeal before us. Case of appellant:

(2.) The appellant is an agriculturist-cum-planter and owns a Coffee Estate called 'Annapumeswari Estate'. He approached the respondent in 1996 to provide a sprinkler set to his Estate. Accordingly project report and estimates were prepared and it was decided to instal 40 H.P. Kirloskar Pump along with HDPE pipe line. The appellant borrowed loan from PC & RD Bank, Mudigere and the work was entrusted to the respondent by paying Rs. 6,05,556 between April and May, 1997. The pump set as well as the sprinkler set were not installed and supplied before the blossoming period of 1997 resulting in a loss of 05.00 lakhs to the appellant. The appellant further submitted that the pump set installed was not properly working, oil from the engine started leaking, the fan belt fitted to the pump started wearing out often and within no time 19 pipes laid in the Estate were also broken. The appellant lost coffee crops weighing 15 tonnes worth Rs. 15 lakhs. Accordingly, he submitted a claim of Rs. 20 lakhs before the District Forum. Case of the respondent:

(3.) Case of the respondent is that he supplied the machinery, pipes and sprinkler on 27.3.1997 and it was serviced to the satisfaction of the appellant. The concerned officials of the Bank after seeing the functioning of the unit and machinery released the loan in four instalments. The appellant was asked to use 6 kg/CM 2 HDPE pipes at the bottom to withstand the pressure and later connection with remaining 4 kg/CM2 pipes. If these instructions were followed by the appellant there was no chance of the pipes getting busted. The complaint of the appellant about the sub-standard pipes and engine were brought to the notice of the respondent after one year-warranty period was over. The appellant successfully used the unit and got very good coffee blossoms. The respondent further submitted that the appellant got further units of 40 HPE pipes from their sub-dealer J.R. Pereira to make the irrigation system faster. The appellant also used unskilled mechanics in handling the unit which resulted in the break downs. Hence he is not liable to pay any compensation.