M/S. CLISSIC AGRICONE Vs. AJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this set of four Revision Petitions, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), is to the orders, all dated 20.02017, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Panchkula (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 235, 236, 237 and 238 of 2016, by one M/s Classic Agricone, an expert in installation of poly-house/net-house, Opposite Party No.1 in the Complaints under the Act. By the impugned orders, while affirming the finding recorded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Panipat (for short "the District Forum") in its orders dated 22.02016 in Complaint Cases No. 180, 179, 203 and 178 of 2013 respectively, to the effect that there was delay and defects in the construction of the poly-houses ordered by the Complainants, Respondents No.1 in these Revision Petitions, and hence there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, the State Commission has modified the final relief granted by the District Forum to the Complainants. As against the compensation varying between 7,00,000.00 and 8,00,000.00, directed to be paid to the Complainants, in addition to the refund of their share in the subsidy amount, the State Commission has directed the refund of only the amount which was paid by the Complainants to the Petitioner towards the cost of the poly-houses.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, both the Forums below have committed illegality in ignoring the fact that when the defects in the poly-houses were pointed out by the Complainants, the Petitioner had offered to repair the same but the Complainants did not make available the site for carrying out such repairs. Learned Counsel has also submitted that insofar as the question of delay in construction of the poly-houses is concerned, the committed period for completion of construction was 100 days, which has been wrongly taken as 45 days by the Fora below. It is also argued that since the poly-houses were got constructed by the Complainants for commercial purposes, they could not be treated as 'consumers' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

(3.) Having perused the material on record, in particular the inspection report prepared by the Senior Government functionaries, in the presence of the Petitioner's representative and the Complainants/Farmers, as also the report of the Committee of Experts, appointed by the State Commission, comprising the District Horticulture Officer, Panipat; Horticulture Development Officer, Bapoli; Horticulture Development Officer, Panipat; Protection Structure Analyst-1, Panchkula; Protection Structure Analyst-II, Panchkula; and District Gardening Consultant, Panipat, referred to in the impugned order (not filed with the Revision Petitions), we are of the opinion that the present Revision Petitions are without any substance.