IMPORTANT POINT
Company cannot deny admission made by its dealer.

M. Shreesha, Member—Aggrieved by the order in Consumer Complaints No. 19, 20 & 22 of 2014 and 22 of 2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short “the State Commission”), both the Complainants and the Opposite Parties have filed First Appeals No. 1277, 1278, 1296 & 1297 of 2016 and 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254 of 2016 respectively, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short “the Act”).

2. By the impugned common order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Complaints, directing the Opposite Parties to pay to each of the Complainants, the following amounts:

Shri. Sopan Ramchandra Jagtap:

i) Cost of balance pipes (267) - Rs.4,60,000/- ii) cost of excavation of trenches Rs.4,62,500/- iii) cost of laying down of pipeline- Rs.1,21,548/- i.e. Total Rs.10,44,048/-. Out of this amount the complainant has already received Rs.3,00,000/- and hence by deducting this amount he is entitled to receive towards cost of pipeline only Rs.7,44,048/-. In addition he is entitled of loss of agricultural income for two years i.e. Rs.4,20,000/- (14 acres x Rs.30,000/-). The total compensation for which he is entitled comes to Rs.11,64,048 say Rs.11,64,000/-. (7,44,048 + 4,20,000).

Shri Sampat Namdeo Kul:

i) Cost of pipe (132) - Rs.2,39,779/- ii) cost of excavation of trenches Rs.4,06,500/- iii) cost of laying down of pipeline- Rs.1,21,548/- (though claimed Rs.3,31,548/- it is considered on par with Sopan Jagtap) i.e. Total Rs.7,67,827/-. By deducting Rs.3,00,000/- received by him he is now entitled for Rs.4,67,827/-. The loss of agricultural income is worked out as Rs.4,89,000/- (16.3 acre x Rs.30,000/-). Thus he is entitled for total compensation Rs.9,56,827/- say Rs.9,56,000/-. (4,67,827 + 4,89,000).

Shri Bhjimraw Vithoba Tamhne:

i) Cost of balance pipes (300) - Rs.5,16,928/- ii) Cost of excavation of trenches Rs.4,62,500/- iii) Cost of laying down of pipeline- Rs.1,16,013/- i.e. Total Rs.10,95,441/-. The loss of agricultural income for two years i.e. Rs.7,65,000/-. The total compensation for which he is entitled to Rs.18,60,441/- (10,65,441 + 7,65,000) say Rs.18,60,000/-.

Shri. Deepak Ramachandra Suryavanshi:

i) Cost of balance pipes (300) - Rs.5,16,928/- ii) Cost of excavation of trenches including cost of fellow farmers -Rs.4,18,350/- i.e. total Rs.9,35,278/- the complainant has not claimed separate cost of laying out of pipeline. The loss of agricultural income for two years i.e. Rs.7,47,000/- (24.09 acres x Rs.30,000). The total compensation for which he is entitled to Rs.16,82,278/- say Rs.19,82,000/- (9,35,278 + 7,47,000).

3. Since both the parties have preferred Cross Appeals, for the sake of convenience, the Appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1277, 1278, 1296 & 1297 of 2016 are hereinafter referred as the ‘Complainants’ and the Appellants in First Appeal Nos. 1251, 1252, 1253 & 1254 of 2016 are hereinafter referred as the ‘Opposite Parties’. Consumer Complaint No. 19 of 2014 is being taken as the lead case.

4. Succinctly put, the facts material to the case, are that the Complainant, an agriculturist, owning agricultural land at Mauje Kolgaon, Dolas, district Pune, purchased PVC pipes manufactured by the first Opposite Party, namely Jain Irrigation System Ltd., for irrigating his agricultural land. The Complainant, had raised a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from Axis Bank, and purchased 50 pipes of 8kg, 250 pipes of 6kg and 742 pipes of 4kg worth Rs. 18,89,550/-. The Complainant averred that the laying of the pipeline of 21,000 feet was completed on 18.08.2013. An electric motor was installed and as soon as it was commissioned, on the very first day itself, the said pipeline burst. Though it was repaired, the problem of rupturing repeated several times, severely disrupting the irrigation of his land.

5. A Surveyor, appointed by the Opposite P