Judgment:
VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
The Revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of District Consumer Forum Durg and M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 381/2006.
2. The complaint of the revision petitioner was dismissed by the District forum holding that there was no deficiency of service in the matter. In Appeal against this order, the State Commission concurred with the District Forum observing that “ œThus, we find that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents was baseless and could not be proved. The District Forum, has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainants/appellants. However, the complainants/ appellants are always having liberty to approach Civil Court for establishing their claim, if they still feel that there was some short supply or that goods of the total cost, which was paid by the State Bank of India to the respondents for the complainant/appellants, were not supplied. But, so far as allegation of deficiency in service is concerned, we do not find it to have been proved?.
3. As seen from the records, the facts of the case relate to purchase of a drip irrigation system by the complainant. The complainant was allegedly told that the system would be 1.1. mm in width and with discharge capacity of 1.3 ltrs. He was quoted a price of Rs 10.85 per meter which was reduced to Rs 8.96 per mtr. The complainants paid a total of Rs 12,06,890 in two cheques. It is alleged that the complainant should have received 1,34,697.55 mtrs of pipe but received only 63900 mtrs. The width was less than 1 mm, as against the promised 1.1 mtrs.
4. Responding to these allegations of deficiency of service the Witten Statement of the OP says”
œRelated to clause 3A, the opposing party has to say that the quotation that was given to the petitioners for the arrangement of the irrigation facilities clearly mentioned that the width of the pipe will be 1.1mm and the discharge will be 1.3 Lt per pipe. Based on this, it was clarified that the width range of the pipe is 1.02 to 1.16 (accepted range 1.00 mm to 1.20mm). Opposing party wants to clarify that the main purpose of the drip irrigation system is to exit a definite amount of water at a definite time. The material that was supplied to the petitioner discharges 1.3 Lt of water per hour, which is within the criteria. This way the opposing party is not involved in any kind of wrong deed and the pipe was supplied according to the quality standards. In this clause, rest of the statements are subject of the record and hence are not answerable. It has been strongly opposed here that the petitioners have been supplied with a Chalaan at rupees 8.96. Hence the petitioners have filed this petition based on fictitious calculations.?
Additional statement
1. Is that the supply made to the applicant was fixed at the rate of 10.85 Rs. According to the quotation, in which the commission of distributor is also included. In the chhalan sent to the applicant the rate of pipe was written Rs.9.95 which was after within of commission?
5. On the allegations in the complaint the District Forum has arrived at the following conclusions and held that allegations of deficiency of service were not substantiated”
a. The width and quality of the pipe were got tested at government scientific laboratory, Raipur. Investigation reports NA-1 and NA-2 show that both were as per the specifications.
b. No agreement was produced by the complainant in support of his claim that the installation was to be done by the OP, at his own cost.
c. On the allegation of short supply of quantity of pipe, the complainant produced money receipts for Rs.6,22,127 and Rs 5,84,763, totalling Rs.12,06,890. But, no evidence of actual quantity supplied was produced.
6. We have heard Mr. Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the complainants. We have also perused the records of the case. The revision petition has been filed with delay of four days. Considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the same is condoned. Learned counsel emphasised that for the quantum of payment received by the OP, supply should have been 134697 mtrs but actual supply was only 63900 mtrs. It was argued that only 213 bundles (coils) of the pipe were supplied, each coil being 300 mtrs. The counsel however, conceded that no agreement was executed between the parties to define the price, length, width, quality or quantity of the pipe agreed to be supplied.
7. The revision petition states (para 3) that œThe facts leading to the filing of the instant Revision Petition are in a narrow compass.? But thereafter, it goes on to narrate the facts of the case, in the next ten pages. The impugned order of the State Commission has been assailed primarily on the ground of shortage in the quantity supplied. According to the petitioner, the agreed rate was Rs.8.96 per mtr. It is also alleged that the OP had agreed to do the installation at his own cost.
8. We find that the revision petition repeatedly refers to œpromises? and œoral representations? between the parties. Even on the crucial questions of the quantity and rate, the revision petition says in Para 4-K that neither the bill nor the chalan were provided by the OP. Thus, the petition does not refer to any specific piece of evidence which was produced before and ignored by the fora below. Earlier in this order, we have referred to the conclusions reached by the District Forum. It needs to be mentioned that on the allegation of poor quality of pipe supplied, no evidence was produced by the complainant. Consequently, the District Forum had to seek the opinion of the government laboratory and base its conclusion thereon.
9. We therefore hold that the revision petitioner has failed miserably to make out any case against the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed as such. We also deem it necessary to observe that filing of this revision petition, in the backdrop of complete failure of the complainant to produce any worthwhile evidence before the fora below, amounts to wasting the time of this Commission in a frivolous litigation. Therefore, cost of Rs 20,000 is imposed on the petitioner/complainant. The same shall be deposited in the legal aid account of this Commission within three months from this order. Delay, if any, shall carry interest at 10% for the period of delay.