State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sitaram S/O. Onkar Naik vs Gurujit Pipe Industries Ltd. on 16 June, 2011
1 F.A.No.:67-09
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 27.01.2009
Date of Order: 16.06.2011
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 67 OF 2009
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 512 OF 2008
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.
Sitaram S/o. Onkar Naik
R/o. Maykheda Digar, Taluka Jamner,
District-Jalgaon. ...Appellant
-Versus-
Gurujit Pipe Industries Ltd.
G-84, MIDC Area, Ajintha Road,
Jalgaon, Taluka & Dist. Jalgaon,
Through its Proprietor, ...Respondent
... Respondent
Coram : Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Shri. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member.
Present: Adv. Shri. R. S. Gangakhedkar, for appellant.
Adv. Shri. A. D. Mundada for respondent.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member
1. Sitaram Onkar Naik appellant herein original complainant challenges in this appeal order passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon on 11.12.2008 in complaint case No. 512/ 2008.2 F.A.No.:67-09
2. Facts of the complaint are as under:
Complainant Sitaram Naik purchased PVC pipe on 11.05.2007 for Rs. 27,955/-. He installed same pipes in his land on 15.05.2007 by incurring expenses of Rs. 15,000/-. It was found that pipes were not of good quality and there was leakage in the pipe.
Therefore on 16.11.2007 he again purchased new pipe for Rs. 34,594/-. He approached to opponent Gurujit Pipe Industries, Jalgaon and informed about the leakage of pipe, but respondent did not replace the pipe or refund the price of PVC pipe, therefore complainant approached to District Forum.
3. Opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. It is contended that pipes were of best quality. Complainant is using said pipe till today. No defect is alleged by the complainant was found in the pipes. Complainant did not produce any expert evidence about the defectiveness of pipe.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum dismissed the complaint.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal.
6. Adv. Shri. R. S. Gangakhedkar appeared for appellant. Adv. Shri. A. D. Mundada appeared for respondent. Both the advocates consented to dispose the appeal at admission stage only. Adv. Gangakhedkar submitted that complainant purchased the pipe on 11th May, 2007. He installed said pipe in his field but due to defectiveness of pipes he could not irrigate his land therefore he has 3 F.A.No.:67-09 to purchase new pipes on 16.11.2007. Though he informed about defectiveness of pipes to the respondent they did not take any action therefore, complainant is to approach the Forum. He further submitted that District Forum without considering the facts and evidence committed error in dismissing the complaint.
7. Adv. Mundada submitted that in the complaint itself complainant mentioned that he purchased pipe on 11.05.2007 for Rs. 27,995/-. But it is also admitted in the complaint that the amount of bill was paid on 22.07.2007 and 28.09.2007. He contended that after purchase of pipe complainant made payment of the bill after four months, means there was no defect in the pipe. If the pipes were of defective quality complainant would not have made the payment. It is further contended by Adv. Mundada that no expert evidence to show that pipes were of defective quality was produced by the complainant. Therefore, District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.
8. We heard the argument of both the counsels. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased PVC pipes from the respondent. It is also an admitted fact that after purchase of pipes complainant made payment after four months. Therefore, it can be held that there was no defect till Sept. 2007 in the pipe. No documentary proof about the same. Complainant never informed to the respondent about the defective quality of the pipes. Complainant directly came before the Forum. Even before Forum no evidence of any expert about defectiveness of pipe is produced. In the absence of 4 F.A.No.:67-09 any evidence about the defectiveness of pipes complaint was dismissed. The Forum has rightly considered the facts and record while dismissing the complaint. Therefore we are dismissing the appeal at admission stage only. Hence,
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Appeal is summarily dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
(K. B. Gawali) (Mrs.Uma S. Bora)
Member Presiding Member
Kalyankar