State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jain Irrigation System Ltd. vs Sh. Karam Chand. on 2 April, 2015
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.411/2014
Date of Presentation: 26.11.2014
Date of Decision: 02.04.2015
........................................................................
Jain Irrigation System Limited,
Jain Plastic Park, NH, PB-72,
Jalgaon (Maharashtra).
.......... Appellant.
Versus
Karam Chand, son of Shri Fithu Ram,
Resident of Village Haryani, Post Office Nagrota Gazian,
Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P.
.......... Respondent.
..............................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. Swaran Dev Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: None.
...........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hamirpur, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against the appellant by respondent, Karam Chand, has been 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Jain Irrigation System Limited Versus Karam Chand (F.A. No.411/2014) _________________________________________________________ allowed and a direction given to the appellant to refund an amount of ` 38,900/-, charged from the respondent, as 20% cost of construction of polyhouse, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay `30,000/-, as compensation and another sum of `5,000/-, as litigation expenses.
2. Admitted facts are that respondent, Karam Chand, wanted to erect a polyhouse over an area, measuring 250 metres, on a portion of his land, in a village of Hamirpur District. He underwent a training course for growing crops in polyhouse and thereafter applied to the Nodal Officer of Agriculture Department for approval of the plan of his polyhouse. Plan was approved and the appellant being one of the approved Agencies for construction of polyhouses, was approached by the respondent to construct a polyhouse. Agreement was executed between the parties on 02.12.2009. In terms of the agreement, work of the construction of polyhouse was to be started within fifteen days and it was to be completed, within forty-five days, from the date of commencement of the work.
Page 2 of 6 Jain Irrigation System Limited Versus Karam Chand (F.A. No.411/2014) _________________________________________________________
3. Respondent filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the appellant did not start the work, within the specified period, nor did it complete the work and that as a matter of fact, its Engineer required him to arrange for a trolley of gravel & sand and eight bags of cement, about twenty days after the execution of the agreement and that he ordered the owner of a tractor trolley to supply the aforesaid material, but the tractor could not reach the site and the material was got unloaded away from the site, where the polyhouse was to be constructed. He alleged that labourers brought by the Engineer of the appellant, on the spot, did not carry the material to the site and he left the site alongwith labourers asking the respondent that foundation be got dug up. It was alleged that respondent got the foundation dug up, by hiring a JCB machine, but thereafter the Engineer of the appellant did not visit the site for about a month and thereafter when he visited the spot, he asked the respondent to get the agreement cancelled and Page 3 of 6 Jain Irrigation System Limited Versus Karam Chand (F.A. No.411/2014) _________________________________________________________ approach the Nodal Officer for allotting the work to some other authorised Agency.
4. Complaint was contested by the appellant and it was stated that the respondent on his own had got the foundation dug up, which was too long and wide and when he was required to arrange the material for filling the foundation, he refused to do so and, therefore, the work could not be carried out. Also, it was stated in the reply that material for construction/erection of polyhouse had been dumped at the site, but the respondent did not allow the Engineer and labourers to carry out the work and the material was still lying on the spot.
5. Parties adduced evidence before the learned District Forum. Respondent filed his own affidavit. Appellant filed the affidavit of its Manager. Learned District Forum, after appraisal of evidence and pleadings of the parties, has allowed the complaint, vide impugned order.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record. Nobody Page 4 of 6 Jain Irrigation System Limited Versus Karam Chand (F.A. No.411/2014) _________________________________________________________ has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice.
7. Respondent filed his own affidavit, in which, he reiterated all the allegations, which are made in the complaint. Appellant's case is that they had deputed an Engineer on the spot, who found that respondent had got dug up the foundations, which were not in accordance with the specifications of the polyhouse. Also, it is the case of the appellant that Engineer never asked the respondent to get the foundations dug up. Appellant, however, did not file the affidavit of the Engineer, who allegedly visited the spot and noticed that the foundations were too wide and too long and not as per specifications.
8. Appellant filed an affidavit of its Manager, who visited the spot, only after the complaint was filed and as per his affidavit, he tried to get the matter settled amicably, but the respondent did not agree and made a statement that he was no longer interested to get the polyhouse constructed from the appellant, as he had already filed a complaint, under Section 12 of Page 5 of 6 Jain Irrigation System Limited Versus Karam Chand (F.A. No.411/2014) _________________________________________________________ the Consumer Protection Act, before the learned District Forum. Since, the Manager, whose affidavit has been relied upon by the appellant had no personal knowledge of the dispute, particularly as to what transpired between the complainant and the site Engineer, at the time when foundations were dug up, or whether foundations were dug by the respondent voluntarily, or on the asking of the site Engineer, no reliance can be placed on his affidavit.
9. As a result of the above stated position, we see no reason to interfere with the order of learned District Forum. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
10. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member April 02, 2015.
*dinesh* Page 6 of 6