H.G. VASUDEVA vs WATERJET ENGINEERS

AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Complaint No. 87 of 1998, Shri H.G. Vasudeva who was the complainant before the State Commission has filed this appeal before us. Case of appellant:

THE appellant is an agriculturist-cum-planter and owns a Coffee Estate called ''Annapumeswari Estate''. He approached the respondent in 1996 to provide a sprinkler set to his Estate. Accordingly project report and estimates were prepared and it was decided to instal 40 H.P. Kirloskar Pump along with HDPE pipe line. THE appellant borrowed loan from PC & RD Bank, Mudigere and the work was entrusted to the respondent by paying Rs. 6,05,556 between April and May, 1997. THE pump set as well as the sprinkler set were not installed and supplied before the blossoming period of 1997 resulting in a loss of 05.00 lakhs to the appellant. THE appellant further submitted that the pump set installed was not properly working, oil from the engine started leaking, the fan belt fitted to the pump started wearing out often and within no time 19 pipes laid in the Estate were also broken. THE appellant lost coffee crops weighing 15 tonnes worth Rs. 15 lakhs. Accordingly, he submitted a claim of Rs. 20 lakhs before the District Forum. Case of the respondent: Case of the respondent is that he supplied the machinery, pipes and sprinkler on 27.3.1997 and it was serviced to the satisfaction of the appellant. The concerned officials of the Bank after seeing the functioning of the unit and machinery released the loan in four instalments. The appellant was asked to use 6 kg/CM 2 HDPE pipes at the bottom to withstand the pressure and later connection with remaining 4 kg/CM2 pipes. If these instructions were followed by the appellant there was no chance of the pipes getting busted. The complaint of the appellant about the sub-standard pipes and engine were brought to the notice of the respondent after one year-warranty period was over. The appellant successfully used the unit and got very good coffee blossoms. The respondent further submitted that the appellant got further units of 40 HPE pipes from their sub-dealer J.R. Pereira to make the irrigation system faster. The appellant also used unskilled mechanics in handling the unit which resulted in the break downs. Hence he is not liable to pay any compensation.

The State Commission after hearing the parties held as follows: It is significant to mention here that the complainant did not complain to respondent till 30.3.1998, the fault as far as sprinkler is concerned or the pump supplied by the respondent. The service was given on 29.3.1997 to the satisfaction of the complainant, only after that, fifteen days later the payment was released by the Bank in instalments. As mentioned above the complainant has not placed any material to show that the respondent has committed deficiency in service. No materials have been placed before this Commission to show that the pipes or the pump supplied by the respondent were defective. The complainant could have requested this Commission to appoint a Commissioner or to send the pipe or pump to get them checked to find out whether they were defective and that request has not been made. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the allegations made in the complaint.

FINDINGS: (1) On perusal of the record it is seen that no affidavit has been filed by the appellant before the State Commission to prove his contention that there were deficiencies in the sprinkler unit, engine and accessories supplied by the respondent. (2) The sprinkler unit and the pump supplied by the respondent were serviced on 29.3.1997 to the satisfaction of the appellant. (3) The bank officials inspected the unit which was mandatory and after seeing the quality of the engine and its performance released the loan amount to the respondent in instalments. (4) Neither any expert evidence nor any independent witness has given an affidavit before the State Commission to prove the contention regarding deficiency of service by the respondent.

Taking note of these facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned analysis and conclusion of the State Commission. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.