Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Municipal Borough
Vallabh Vidyanagar —Complainant
versus
M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.10 of 2004
Decided on 31.10.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Jeevan Prakash, Advocate, Mr. Madhav Prakash, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos.3 and 4:Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, Mr. Sourabh Pareek, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.5:Mr. Abhishek Gusain, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Fracture - If the cracks in pipes had come due to low backfilling then longitudinal fracture were not possible rather fracture would be crosswise.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—S. 21(a)(i) —[Consumer Protection Act, 2019—S.58(1)(a)(i)]—Services – Real Estate – Repairs/ Defects Etc – Manufacturing Defects - Defective PVC Pipes – Liability of Manufacturer - Complaint has been filed for alleged deficiency in services - In the meeting held on 16.08.2001, in presence of representatives of opposite parties-3 and 4 and Reliance Industries, it has been verified that there were no traffic load, at the places where pipes were burst. The municipality sent the sample of burst pipes for examination to Anu Lab, Agra on 19.07.2001. Anu Lab, Agra, after examination, submitted its report dated 24.08.2001, in which it has been clearly mentioned that “improper processing during manufacturing of pipe is related to its low percentage elongation and vide variation in the values obtained from the specimen from failed section of pipe”. This report was disputed only on the ground that Anu Lab report did not bear the logo of National Accreditation Board For Testing & Calibration Laboratories. Opposite party-4 did not obtain any report from an independent lab, in respect of manufacturing defects, although sample of burst pipes were supplied to it. If the cracks in pipes had come due to low backfilling then longitudinal fracture were not possible rather fracture would be crosswise - During pendency of the complaint, the municipality again obtained fresh report of Anu Lab, Agra dated 18.10.2006, attaching the logo of National Accreditation Board For Testing & Calibration Laboratories and filed along with Supplementary Affidavit of Evidence of Dr. R., in which, again manufacturing defects in burst pipes has been reported. Opposite party-4 did not file any evidence to rebut this report nor cross-examined Dr. R.B. Singh. From this report, it is proved that burst pipes supplied by opposite party-4 suffered from manufacturing defects. As such defects in goods supplied by opposite party-4 has been proved - The complainants, in paragraph-13 of the complaint, has stated that total payment of Rs.9559933/- was made to M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel (opposite party-1) of this work. This fact has been admitted by opposite party-2. As such due to supply of the pipes suffering from manufacturing defects, the municipality has suffered a loss of Rs.9559933/-. Including other expenses, the loss can be rounded to Rs. one crore - The municipality has suffered total loss of laying down sewer pipeline as done in the year 1999-2000 – Therefore, the complaint is party allowed with cost of Rs.2/- lacs. [Paras 16 to 19].
Result: Complaint allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Jeevan Prakash, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Verma, Advocate, for opposite parties-1 & 2, Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for opposite party-3 & 4 and Mr. Abhishek Gusain, Advocate, for the opposite party-5.
2. Above complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally to pay (i) Rs.39066708/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment, as compensation, for laying down sewer pipelines, replacement of damaged pipes, loss of reputation and goodwill and mental pain and agony, (ii) the cost of litigation; and (iii) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case.
3. The complainants stated as follows:—
(a) Vallabh Vidyanagar Borough Municipality (for short the municipality) was a statutory authority, constituted under Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. The municipality invited tender for laying down sewer out fall rising main 400 mm & 315 mm PVC pipeline, in 7 KM long, in the year 1999. The work for laying down sewer out fall was in following steps, (i) excavation for pipeline, (ii) dewatering, (iii) refilling the excavated earth, (iv) supplying tested uPVC pipes, (v) Providing and fixing thrust blocks, (vi) providing and fixing reflux valves, (vii) providing and fixing sluice valves, (viii) providing and fixing double acting air valves, (ix) construction of valve chambers, (x) fixing tested magnetic flow meters, (xi) fixing submersible sewage pump sets, (xii) fixing electronic control system and (xiii) fixing electric generation set.
(b) The municipality accepted tender of M/s. Dahyabhai B. Patel and executed an agreement on 20.10.1999, who sub-contracted with M/s. Shikhar Construction. M/s. Shikhar Construction took quotation from The Supreme Industries Limited for supply of 400 x 4 Kg., 2750 mtrs, 400 x 2.5 kg, 3270 mtrs and 315 x 2.5 kg, 3270 mts, with its coupler. The Supreme Industries Limited gave its quotation on 08.09.1999, clarifying that pipes would be confirming to IS 4985-1988 (not IS 4985-1995 as mentioned in the letter for quotation). M/s. Shikhar Construction placed order for supply of 400 x 4 Kg., and 400 x 2.5 kg, which was supplied by Supreme Industries Ltd.
(c) From chain-age 00 to 3300 mtrs-400mm x 4kg/cm2 and from chain-age 3300 to 7000 mtrs-400 x2.5 kg./cm2 sewage pipeline was laid down during November, 1999 to April, 2000. On 15.12.2000, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done from sub pump of Pulane company Chain-age 00 mtr. to chain-age 1200 mtrs., giving 0.2 kg to 0.6 kg pressure. During test, leakages were found at three places. It has been stated that in past also the pipes burst four times. The bursting was longitudinally. These proceedings were recorded in the minutes dated 15.12.2000.
(d) After completion of some more work, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done on 22.01.2001, in pipes chain-age 670 mtrs. and again several pipes were burst. On 14.02.2001, in presence of representatives of the opposite parties, pressure test was done, in pipes chain-age 600 mtrs. and again burst in fifteen pipes were found. During 12.10.2000 to 08.06.2001, 28 pipes were burst, despite the pressure never reached one kg/sq. cm. Bottom side burst were longitudinally and crosswise burst were diagonal.
(e) The Supreme Industries Limited gave a fax message to M/s. Wavin Overseas Ltd., its foreign collaborator, on 20.12.2000 pointing out bursting of the pipes. M/s. Shikhar Construction wrote a letter dated 22.12.2000 to The Supreme Industries Limited, in this respect. However, opposite party-4 did not accept manufacturing defect rather attributed reason of burst due to (i) pressure of back cotton soil, (ii) improper back filling, (iii) Less numbers of air valves and (iv) traffic load. The municipality took opinion of its expert JenJ consultant, who gave his report dated 30.04.2001, allegi
