M.P.URJA VIKAS NIGAM vs PHOOL SINGH

THE aforesaid appeals arise out of the common order dated 4th April, 1998 passed in Case Nos. 110/1993, 111/1993, 112/1993, 113/1993 and 114/1993 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (for short the ''District Forum''), hence the same are being disposed of by this common order.

FACTS giving rise to the appeals are thus: the appellant is a State Nodal Agency (for short ''SNA'') who in pursuance of letter dated April 1, 1987 of Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department of Non-Conventional Energy Sources (for short ''DNCES'') approached the complainants for providing solar photovoltaic water pumping systems consisting of photovoltaic array of 360 peak watts, manual tracking structure, DC motor pump set, wires, switches etc. of the total cost of each system of Rs. 52,000/- including packing and forwarding charges with 4 spare carbon brushes to be supplied along with each system. DNCES was to pay the subsidy to the supplier of Rs. 43,500/- for each system and the purchaser was required to pay the balance of Rs. 7,500/- of the system to the supplier through the SNA and in addition Rs. 1,000/- to meet the expenses of transportation, insurance and installation. The pump had the capacity of lifting about 33,000-40,000 litres of water from a total head of 3-6 metres on a bright sunny day which could irrigate about two hectares of land. In supply of the system, the Government of India advised SNA to assist the user in the installation, operation and maintenance of the systems. The amount of Rs. 8,500/- was to be paid by the purchaser through a Bank. The warranty of the system was thus : "7. Warranty and performance guarantee : CEL, and REIL will give warranty on all modules and systems supplied by them against any defects in material, design, engineering, workmanship and manufacturing. The period of the warranty will be as follows : (i) In respect of the modules - 4 years and 3 months from the date of dispatch by CEL, 4 years by REIL and one year by BHEL. (ii) In respect of the balance of systems and other components - 15 months from the date of dispatch or one year from the date of installation which-ever is earlier. During the above period of warranty, they will repair or replace free of cost any part or component which has been found to be defective or deficient in performance. The part/component/equipments will be sent to CEL, BHEL or REIL at the cost of the user/user agencies and collected after repairs/replacement from them at the cost of the user/user agencies. The warranty shall not apply in case of misuse, neglect and wilful damage, accident, improper storage, handling transportation, natural calamity and acts of God."

The appellant helped the complainants in getting the subsidy for supply of the system and in obtainment of the loan from the State Bank of India, Dondi Lohara Branch which advanced the loan of Rs. 7,500/- and paid the same to the manufacturer. According to the complainants, after installation on 22.2.1989 by the appellant the system did not work to the satisfaction of the complainants during the warranty period, of which the complaint was made. On that, the Mechanical Engineer of the appellant found that the motor of the pump has burnt, which was not repairable in the village. Hence, all the motors were taken for their repairs to Raipur where after armature rewinding and changing of parts, the motor was made in order. However, repair charges of Rs. 960/- per motor were not made by the complainants who refused to take back the motor. The complainants filed their separate complaints for deficiency in service and claimed the return of the amount of solar pump sets of Rs. 8,500/- with interest and Rs. 20,000/- as loss to the crops from the appellant. The complaints were resisted stating that the manufacturers HCL REIL, BHEL are necessary parties, therefore, for nonjoinder of necessary parties, the complaints are liable to be dismissed. The appellant helped for getting the subsidy from the Government of India and loan from the Bank for purchase of the said pump. The appellant did not charge any consideration. The pump worked alright for a period of three years of which no complaint was made during warranty period. The pump set went out of order due to mishandling and not operating the pump set according to the instructions.

The District Forum on the evidence adduced found deficiency in service in supply of defective pump set and that the complainant wrote that they do not want the motor now as it would not be usable because the water level has gone down, therefore, even if the motor is fitted the solar pump set would not be functional or workable, hence, ordered the appellant to pay the amount of loan of Rs. 8,500/- to the State Bank of India with its interest and Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 750/- as costs of the proceedings to each complainant.

MR. Mohan Chouksey, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant helped only in getting the subsidy and loan from the Bank for purchase of the solar pump sets. No consideration was paid to the appellant, hence, there was no hiring or rendering of service for consideration. The liability, if any, was of the manufacturers, who were not impleaded as parties. The defect in the solar pump set was due to manhandling and not following the instructions for which no liability can be fastened. On the other hand, the appellant sent their Mechanical Engineer to help the complainants. After rewinding of the motor the repair charges were to be paid by the complainants, which were not paid by them as would be evident from the letter dated 22.5.1992 (Ex. P/3). Mr. R.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the order and submitted that it is at the instance and pursuasion of the appellant the complainants who are illiterate poor tribals purchased the solar pump sets, after taking loan of Rs. 8,500/- from the Bank. However, the pump sets became unusable. In inspite of repair of the motor solar pump sets were not beneficial for irrigation as the ground water level has gone down, hence, the District Forum having found deficiency in service in supply of the defective pump sets of which the motor went out of order within the warranty period, rightly ordered the appellant to pay the loan amount of Rs. 8,500/- with its interest and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- with Rs. 750/- the costs of the proceedings.

TRUE, the appellant did not charge any consideration for hiring or rendering of service and helped the complainants for subsidy, loan facility, purchase and installation of the pump set in view of the Government of India Scheme, therefore, there was no relationship of a consumer of the complainant with the appellant. To say so we place reliance on a decision of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in case of Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency & Anr. v. Saraswathi Ammal & Ors., I (1999) CPJ 129. However, in view of the letter dated 1.4.1987 the DNCES, of the Government of India, the appellant acted as an SNA and persuaded the complainants to purchase the pump sets of which the subsidy was provided by the Government of India of Rs. 43,500/- for each pump set. In the circumstances, the ends of justice would meet if the appellant is directed to pay the repair charges of the motor and to fit the same in the pump sets so that the pump sets may function. Considering the financial condition of the respondents we also direct the appellant to bear the costs of the proceedings as awarded by the District Forum in each case. For the rest of the claim the complainants, if so advised, shall be at liberty to approach the manufacturers, Government of India and also the State Bank of India for seeking the relief of waiver or remission of the loan amount with its accrued interest. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to pay the repair charges of the motors and to fit the same in the pump sets of the complainants and also to pay the amount of cost only as ordered by the District Forum to each of the complainants within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

IN the result, the appeals are partly allowed. The order of the District Forum shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. A copy of this order be conveyed to the parties and a copy be sent to the District Forum along with the record of the case. Appeals partly allowed.