- (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ramanathapuram. The complainants are the respondents. Since we are of the view that these appeals have to be accepted, it is not necessary to elaborate the facts of the case. The gist of the complaint is that the complainants purchased aluminium sprinkler pipes from the 2nd opposite party and laid them in the fields and that after some time the pipes became leaking and thus there is deficiency in service. On this ground the complaint was laid against the Agriculture Department as the 1st opposite party and the supplier of the pipes as the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has preferred an appeal in A.P. No. 986/2002 while the 2nd opposite party has preferred an appeal in A.P. No. 747/2002.
(2.) NOW , coming to the 1st opposite party the 1st opposite party has sanctioned subsidy for the purchase by the complainant because he was a poor farmer under the scheme launched by the Government to help poor farmers. Therefore, the complainant, instead of thanking the 1st opposite party for having sanctioned the subsidy of about 75% of the purchase price for laying the pipes, strangely, has hauled them up before this Forum as though there is deficiency in service. We do not know on what ground the lower Forum has found it fit to pass an award as against the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has come to the help of the complainant in the matter of purchase of pipes by advancing 75% of the value of the pipes. Therefore, with reference to the 1st opposite party, the complainant cannot be a consumer nor there is any hiring of service. At best the 1st opposite party has only helped him to avail the financial assistance and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, any claim can be made either for deficiency in service or otherwise as against the 1st opposite party. Hence the order passed by the lower Forum as against the 1st opposite party deserves to be set aside.
(3.) NOW , coming to the 2nd opposite party the 2nd opposite party has supplied the aluminium sprinkler pipes. The 2nd opposite party has made it clear that the dealership agreement between the 2nd opposite party and M/s. Premier Irrigation Limited was only for the period upto 5th June, 1997. Though the purchase was made earlier to June 1997, from the complaint we find that the pipes were laid only in the month of June, 1997. It is not known when actually the complainant found out the defect or when the pipes became leaky. It is only on 10.11.1997 he has chosen to issue the notice complaining that the pipes had become leaky and there was deficiency in service. Therefore, even assuming that there is some merit in the said contention of the complainant, deficiency in service with reference to the pipes has arisen only after June, 1997 by which period the dealership of the opposite party had come to an end. The 2nd opposite party has also clearly disclosed their principal. Therefore, under Section 213 of the Contract Act when the principal has been disclosed and when on the date of the complaint the complainant was aware of the same, his remedy is to have proceeded against the principal and, therefore, the complaint filed against the 2nd opposite party is thus misconceived. Even otherwise on facts, we find that the complainant took the responsibility of laying the pipes himself. The pipes being made of aluminium material, naturally when they are laid underground, they, owing to the natural process and exposure to water and atmosphere and inherent qualities of the soil are likely to develop corrosive ingredients and, therefore, the complainant cannot accuse the 2nd opposite party of having supplied sub -standard material. He should have taken the guidance of the 2nd opposite party before laying the pipes. But instead of doing the same, he himself went about laying the pipe contrary to the instructions of the 2nd opposite party and, therefore, it is that he has to blame himself for any event that subsequently followed. Hence the complaint as against the 2nd opposite party is clearly misconceived and cannot be accepted. Therefore, we have to hold that the complaint as such is not maintainable against the 2nd opposite party and there is no deficiency in service. Therefore, it follows that the order of the Lower Forum cannot be sustained. In the result, these two appeals are allowed. The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed but in the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.;