Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 20.05.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.270 of 2018 in which order dated 26.02.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (Punjab) (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 83 of 2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission and dismissing the complaint.
2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Respondent-1 and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant in the said FA 270 of 2018 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was OP-1 and Respondent was Complainant before the District Forum in the CC No. 83 of 2012. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 02.01.2020. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the District Forum.
3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that the complainant, is an agriculturist by profession and is co-owner and in profession of agricultural land at Village Phullo. The complainant, in order to irrigate his land, purchased 200 PVC pipes (as per their first complaint dated 30.03.2012) from the Petitioner for a price of Rs.94,810/-. In his amended complaint, the complainant stated that he purchased 525 PVC pipes from Petitioner but to avoid payment of income Tax etc., Petitioner issued bill No. 746 dated 30.05.2011 only for Rs.1,00,025/- by mentioning purchase of only 200 pipes and that the actual payment made was of Rs.3,20,250/-. These pipes have been laid down underground by complainant with the help of labour by spending expenses from his pocket for carrying water from tubewell bore to different parts of his land. In June 2011 the complainant laid down those pipes at the depth of 3½ feet. After three days of using the pipes, the pipes started cracking and leaking at many places. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Vide Order dated 26.02.2018 in the CC no. 83 of 2012 the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 26.02.2018 of District Forum, complainant appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 20.05.2019 in FA No.270 of 2018 has accepted the appeal of the Complainant and set aside the order of the District Forum dated 26.02.2018 and complaint was accepted with the directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1,00,025/- as price of the PVC pipes and to pay Rs.50,000/- as expenses incurred by complainant on installation of the pipes, to the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. thereupon from the date of purchase till its actual payment and also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as composite amount of compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses. All the amounts were directed to be paid by the OPs-1 & 2 jointly and severely to complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
5. OP-1 (Petitioner herein) has challenged the said Order dated 26.02.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:-
(i) The complainant was informed about the unsuitability of PVC Pipes for underground irrigation.
(ii) The State Commission erroneously observed "There is no dispute of this fact that the pipes were laid down by the complainant to irrigate his land, which were sold by OP-1 and this fact is also apparent from the report of Halqa Kanugo of the area, who was appointed as local commissioner and he submitted his report dated 03.05.2017. The reasoning of the District Forum on this point is erroneous that O.P No. 1 is the authorized dealer of O.P No.2 with regard to PVC pipes and it sold the PVC pipes of 11 kg to Complainant and they cracked after laying them down in the earth and the very purpose for irrigation of land of Complainant stood nullified thereby. OP No. 1 could not have sold the PVC pipes of such an inferior quality so as to crack immediately after laying them down in the land. Why OP No. 1 has been selling such type of inferior quality of PVC pipes material, if it was not able to serve the purpose. No report of expert witness is required on this point as the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable herein.”
(iii) The State commission erred in holding that the pipes sold to Complainant were of inferior quality. In fact, the pipes sold to the Complainant of 11kgs length are not suitable for underground irrigation and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the Complainant while selling the pipes to the complainant. The State Commission failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has since the beginning maintained his stand, that while the Complainant was purchasing the said pipes, one Jasveer Singh, was also present at the shop and he has deposed in this regard that the Complainant was informed by the Petitioner that 11kgs pipe is not suitable for underground irrigation and instead he should buy the 16 kgs pipes. The Complainant was also informed that one Ranjit Singh and one Gurmeet Singh of neighboring had purchased pipes for the same purpose and they bought the 16 kgs pipes and were very satisfied with its performance. This fact has been completely ignored by the State Commission. The pipes purchased by the Complainant were of 11 kgs while the pipes suitable for underground irrigation are of 16 kgs. This fact was also mentioned on the bill issued to the Complainant and it was also informed that the price of both pipes is the same, but the Complainant still insisted on buying the 11kgs length pipe.
(iv) The Complainant is not a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act since he had purchased the pipes for commercial purpose. The Complainant purchased the pipes for the furtherance of his business of agriculture. The Complainant also employed several persons in furtherance of his business of agriculture. The Complainant also employed people to lay down the said pipes. The present case, therefore, falls clearly under the purview of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute, which if applied to the present situation, would exclude the Complainant from the ambit of consumer. Thus, as maintained by the Petitioner from the first pleadings, no consumer case but only civil suit is made out.
(v) It is a matter of record that the Complainant has lied on oath and made contradictory statements in an effort to obtain compensation, The Complainant in his original complaint stated he purchase of pipes worth Rs.94,810/-. The Complainant at a much later stage amended his Complaint and now stated he purchase of pipes worth Rs.3,20,250/-. From perusal of application dated 19.10.2016 filed by Complainant for amendment of complaint, the only reasoning given is that complainant instructed his counsel to file complaint for the total claim of Rs.3,20,250/- but the counsel for the complainant filed claim only for an amount of Rs.1,00,025/-.
(vi) Despite Petitioner’s recommendation that only 16 kg pipe would suit the Complainant's purpose, the Complainant still insisted on buying the 11 kg pipes. Therefore, the Petitioner also wrote on the invoice that in such case Petitioner will not assume any responsibility. The State erroneously observed that in such a situation the Petitioner should have refused to sell the pipes to the Complainant.
6. Heard counsel of Petitioner and Respondent, who appeared in person. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
6.1. During hearing, the counsel for the Petitioner argued that it is the Manufacturer Company, which is liable, as they have stated in their Invoice and the Respondent was advised to purchase pipes of 16 kg. capacity rather than 11 kg., which cannot withstand the weight of the soil for the purpose the same were bought. In pursuance to the order dated 23.06.2023, the Petitioner has filed Brochure of Government of India for guidelines for planning and design of piped irrigation network, showing as to what are the weight bearing capacities of different categories of pipes.
6.2 The Respondent on the other hand has argued that as per the report of the Local Commissioner (Kanungo), the total length of the pipes was 10,268 ft. Each pipe weighed 10.650 kg. and the length of each pipe was 19 ft. 9 inch. Hence, he bought 525 pipes and not 200. However, the purchase bill produced by the Respondent is for only 200 pipes. The Respondent claims that the Petitioner did not give the bill for the full quantity.
7. We have carefully gone through the impugned order of the State Commission. It is a well-reasoned and speaking order. The State Commission has given clear findings of unfair trade practice on the part of OP and has held both OP-1 & OP-2 to be liable jointly and severally, being authorized dealer and manufacturer of PVC pipes. The State Commission has also given a well-reasoned observation on why his subsequent contention of having bought 525 PVC pipes as per amended complaint cannot be accepted. As was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. No substantial law points have been raised in the instant Revision Petition. We find no infirmity or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed along with litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner herein to the Respondent herein. All payments as per orders of State Commission along with litigation costs as per this order to be paid by the Petitioner within two months of this order, failing which, it will carry interest @ 12% p.a.
8. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
