State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse ... vs Arvind Sohal And Another on 25 September, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.83/2013
Date of Presentation: 05.04.2013
Date of Decision: 25.09.2013
.................................................................................
M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants,
6A, Diara Sector, near Sri Laxmi Narayan Mandir,
Bilaspur, H.P.,
Through its Proprietor Shri Inder Singh Thakur.
.......... Appellant
Versus
(1) Arvind Sohal, son of Shri R.D. Sohal,
Resident of Village and Post Office Badhera,
Tehsil Haroli, District Una, H.P.
(2) Deputy Director, Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture,
District Una, H.P.
.......... Respondents
.......................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. R.D. Sohal, Father/Attorney
of Respondent No.1.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Vinay Verma, A.D.A.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant, M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants, is aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2012, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Una, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)} 1986, filed against it and respondent No.2, Deputy Director, Agriculture, by respondent No.1, Arvind Sohal, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant) to refund an amount of `86,000/- received from respondent-complainant, on account of part payment of cost of erection of two polyhouses, with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of agreement, i.e. 28.07.2009 to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay compensation of `50,000/- and costs of `5,000/-.
2. Respondent, Arvind Sohal, hereinafter called complainant, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellant and respondent No.2, Deputy Director, Agriculture, alleging that in accordance with Pandit Deendayal Kisan Bagwan Samridhi Yojna, he wanted to set up four polyhouses on his land in Village Badhera (Haroli) of Una District, for which, he submitted a project report to respondent No.2, Deputy Director, Agriculture. His project was approved. Thereafter, he raised a loan of `86,000/- from a bank to pay 20% of the costs of two polyhouses to the appellant, who was one of the polyhouse builders, on the panel of Page 2 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)} respondent No.2. The amount of loan raised from the bank was paid to the appellant. An agreement was executed on 28.07.2009. As per conditions of the scheme as also the agreement, construction of polyhouses was to be completed within two months and on completion of construction, remaining cost of polyhouses, which was equivalent to 80% of the total cost, i.e. `3,44,000/- was to be paid, by way of subsidy by the Agriculture Department of Himachal Pradesh, directly to the appellant.
3. According to the respondent-complainant, appellant did not complete the construction of polyhouses within the stipulated period, nor even thereafter and whatever work was carried out on the site was defective, erratic and not upto to the mark. Work was inspected by the representatives of the respondent No.2 on different dates and various defects in workmanship as also the material used in the construction of polyhouses, were noticed and the same were pointed out to the appellant by the functionaries of respondent No.2. Appellant allegedly did not remove those defects with the result that the respondent-complainant could not make use of the Page 3 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)} polyhouses, nor could he claim 80% of the cost from the Agriculture Department. So, he prayed for issuance of a direction to the appellant to refund the money paid by him, i.e. an amount of `86,000/- and also to pay money, equivalent to the subsidy amount, i.e. `3,44,000/-, besides compensating him for the non- use of the site of polyhouses as also the polyhouses.
4. Replies were filed, both by the respondent as also the appellant. Respondent No.2 in its reply admitted that work carried out on the site by the appellant was not upto the mark and that the material used was also sub-standard and defective, with the result that polyhouses remained non-functional.
5. Appellant admitted that there had been delay in completing the work, but alleged that main cause of delay was that respondent-complainant insisted for raising the height of polyhouses from 2.5 Metres to 2.75 Metres. It was denied that material used was sub-standard or the workmanship was of poor quality.
6. Also, it was stated that the Forum did not have jurisdiction, but it was not explained how the jurisdiction of the Forum was barred. Page 4 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)}
7. Learned District Forum has allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Government Pleader representing respondent No.2 and Attorney of respondent No.1/ complainant and have gone through the record.
9. It is not disputed by the appellant that there had been delay in raising the construction of polyhouses. As per Clause-18 of the Agreement, time limit for completion of polyhouses was 75 days. Admittedly, the job had not been completed within 75 days. Excuse made by the appellant is that the complainant wanted the height of polyhouses to be raised from 2.5 Metres to 2.75 Metres. This plea appears to be nothing, but an afterthought, because the same was raised for the first time. In letter Annexure-D/A, dated 19.12.2009, which the appellant addressed to Deputy Director, Agriculture, i.e. respondent No.2, in response to his letter dated 11.12.2009, in which, it was pointed out that there had been delay in completing the construction of polyhouses and also there were many defects in the workmanship as also the material.
Page 5 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)}
10. We find on record a letter dated 26.12.2009, Annexure C-41, written by Subject Matter Specialist, Development Block, Haroli to respondent No.2, in which, following shortcomings were pointed out in the structures of polyhouses:-
"1. UV Sheet should have been 40 cm in the soil, whereas it is about 15-20 cm only.
2. Sharp ends of GI pipes were not grinded properly which may results in causing damage/holes to the UV sheet in future.
3. Certain number of pipes at joints is in cracked condition.
4. Insect net is not tightly fitted."
11. The aforesaid shortcomings were pointed out after inspection by the Subject Matter Specialist and the said inspection was carried out, when the appellant addressed a letter, Annexure-D/A, dated 19.12.2009 to the Deputy Director, Agriculture, i.e. respondent No.2, informing that the shortcomings/ defects brought to its notice either did not exist or the respondent-complainant was not prepared to meet the cost of additions demanded by him. The aforesaid letter, Annexure C-41, establishes beyond doubt that Page 6 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)} workmanship was not upto the mark and material used was also defective.
12. The aforesaid evidence supports the finding of learned District Forum that the appellant had been deficient in rendering service, not only, on account of delay in completing the work, but also on account of having used defective and sub-standard material and workmanship also being of poor quality.
13. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that when there is a direction to the appellant to refund the money received from the respondent- complainant, the appellant should be entitled to take back the material of polyhouses erected on the spot. Attorney of the respondent-complainant says that he has no objection to the removal of material of polyhouses, available on the spot, by the appellant.
14. In view of the above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed, with this modification in the order of learned District Forum that the appellant shall have the right to remove from the spot material used by it in erecting the polyhouses, within two months from the date of this order and the money payable, in terms of the impugned order of the learned Page 7 of 8 {(M/s. Thakur Brothers Greenhouse Consultants Vs. Arvind Sohal & Anr.) (F.A. No.83/2013)} District Forum, shall be released in favour of the respondent/complainant on expiry of two months' period.
15 A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member September 25, 2013 *dinesh* Page 8 of 8