ATUL PIPE CORPORATION Vs. JAI NARAIN & 4 ORS S/O SH PIARE LAL; DIRECTOR SUPPLY AND DISPOSAL; DIRECTOR AGRICULTURAL HARYANA; DIVISIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER; ASSISTANT SOIL CONSERVATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18. 07. 2016, passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 984/2015, "Atul Pipe Corporation versus Jai Narain & Ors. ", vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 03. 1 2015, passed by the District Forum, Kurukshetra in consumer complaint No. 400/2002, filed by the present respondent-1/complainant Jai Narain, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) As stated by the complainant Jai Narain in his consumer complaint no. 400/2002, he received a loan of Rs. 67,000/- from the Primary Land Development Bank (PLDB), Thanesar, Kurukshetra, Haryana under the 'Underground Pipeline Scheme'. The said Bank issued a bank draft of Rs. 44,880/- in favour of the petitioner/opposite party (OP) No. 1 Atul Pipe Corporation through OP-5, the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kurukshetra, through whom, 25% subsidy amount was to be awarded to the complainant. The said draft was paid to the petitioner/OP-1 for the purchase of 120 RCC pipes, 12" in diameter with rubber rings. It is alleged that the petitioner/OP-1 supplied only 108 pipes against the order of 120 pipes. Four of the pipes supplied were broken, meaning thereby that there was shortfall of 16 pipes in the supply made by the petitioner. Moreover, the pipes were made of substandard material. The supply of the pipes was made @187/- per mtr. , whereas such pipes were available in the open market at Rs. 100/- per mtr. and in this manner, excess amount was charged by the petitioner in the transaction. Alleging that he had suffered loss of Rs. 20,000/- for substandard supply of pipes and further Rs. 16,750/- as loss of subsidy and Rs. 2 lakh as loss of crops and Rs. 2,992/- for less supply of pipes, the complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,40,622/- to him and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh for deficiency in service.

(3.) The District Forum vide order dated 0 11. 2015, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/OP-1 to pay a sum of Rs. 14,400/- alongwith interest @10% p. a. from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. The District Forum held that no compensation was payable by OP-2 to 5 which were authorities of the State Government. The petitioner/OP-1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 4,404/- to the complainant for short supply of pipes and, in addition a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in service. In this way, the District Forum directed payment of Rs. 14,400/- alongwith interest @10% p. a. till realisation. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, but the said appeal having been dismissed vide the impugned order, the petitioner/OP-1 is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.