DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala<br /> <br /> Dated this the 15th day of October, 2007<br /> <br /> Present: Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, President (I/C)<br /> Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.43/2006<br /> Sanoj,<br /> S/o.Sundaran,<br /> Rakkiyampadam House,<br /> Mudappallur,<br /> Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant <br /> <br /> Vs<br /> <br /> 1.Chandran,<br /> Proprietor,<br /> Chans Electricals,<br /> Main Road, Vadakkenchery,<br /> Alathur.<br /> <br /> 2.The Manager,<br /> Ravi Engineering Industries,<br /> 41-B, Main Road,<br /> K.R.Puram,<br /> Avarampalayam,<br /> Ganapathy.P.O, Coimbatore. - Opposite parties <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> By Mrs.K.P.Suma, Member <br /> <br /> Complainant herein have availed an agricultural loan of Rs.25,000/- from the State Bank of Travancore, Vadakkenchery for the purpose of installing a submersible pump set for his bore well. He submits that he has obtained a quotation from the 1st opposite party and the same was submitted to the Bank. He conveyed his requirement of drawing water from the depth of 235 feet to <br /> <br /> <br /> the opposite party and complainant was made believe by the 1st opposite party that an 18 stage motor of 1.5 HP would be sufficient for his purpose. Further the opposite party have also recommended to buy the “imperial” submersible pump manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and assured him that it is a quality product with one year warranty and 1st opposite party will do the installation, maintenance, repair or even replacement in case of necessity and they are having effective tie up with 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complainant submits that he agreed to buy the above said motor and accessories and 1st opposite party submitted a quotation for Rs.25,000/- i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of motor and Rs.10,000/- for the accessories. The complainant purchased the motor on 16/02/2005 from the 1st opposite party for which the bank had directly issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- to 1st opposite party. The complainant alleges that the 1st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.8,500/- only and that too in a letter pad without any authentication. He submits that right from this stage the 1st opposite party is adopting an unfair trade practices and the 1st opposite party was not prepared to make a fair deal imparting the actual information regarding the equipment. <br /> <br /> Complainant alleges that the motor was installed on 17/02/2005. But the performance of the motor was not satisfactory and he alleges that the motor was not having the power of 1.5 hp motor. Though the complainant brought the same to the notice of 1st opposite party yet he was not prepared to attend the problem. Hence the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party upon which they have sent a personnel for inspection. The representative of 2nd opposite party promised to rectify the defects effectively and directed the complainant to contact 1st opposite party to get it rectified. Accordingly when the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party he adopted an adamant and <br /> <br /> <br /> arrogant attitude that he would repair the set only on payment. Complainant submits that the warranty period was for one year from 16.2.05 to 15.02.06. He alleges that the motor was not at all in its full working capacity ever since its installation and his attempt to get it corrected become futile due to the hostile attitude of 1st opposite party thereby he has suffered huge loss and mental agony.<br /> <br /> On 1.2.06, complainant caused lawyer notices to opposite parties and for which false statements were replied by the 1st opposite party and also stated that he was ready to rectify within the warranty period. Complainant alleges that 1st opposite party never tried to keep his words. 1st opposite party in his reply notice stated that he has received only Rs.8,500/-, and he had paid Rs.6,500/- directly to complainant. it is further stated in the reply that he had installed a new motor. According to the complainant the aforesaid statement are entirely false and there were only an attempt to escape from liability. Complainant alleges that 2nd opposite party did reply to his lawyer notice. Alleging that opposite parties were not willing to render any effective remedy to his grievances, thus the complainant filed this complaint before this forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to repair/replace the motor, to pay cost and compensation and such other orders which the forum deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.<br /> Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties for their appearance. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Notice to 2nd opposite party returned unclaimed. Hence 2nd opposite party was called and set ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 1st opposite party in their version has admitted that the complainant has <br /> <br /> approached the 1st opposite party for quotation, for obtaining loan from State Bank of Travancore, Vadakkenchery Branch, for the purpose of installing submersible pump set in the bore well. 1st opposite party has issued a quotation for the above purpose and the bank has issued a cheque in favour of 1st opposite party for Rs.25,000/-. On receipt of the cheque the complainant approached him and requested to supply another pump set worth Rs.8,500/- instead of quoted one and demanded to give back the balance amount of Rs.16,500/-. Since he was in need of money for the treatment of his father then who has been hospitalised. 1st opposite party was forced to accept the demand made by the complainant. The complainant purchased motor worth Rs.8,500/- and received the balance amount of Rs.16,500/- from the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> 1st opposite party denied the averment in the complaint that the complainant has conveyed him that the bore well is having a depth of 235 feet and the requirement of drawing water from that depth to irrigate the land. He has supplied Imperial motor pump marketed by 2nd opposite party with one year warranty, which is a quality product. He had issued a bill for Rs.8,500/- since the balance was returned to the complainant. He also contended that the motor supplied was having power of 1.5 HP but the accessories used by the complainant was below standard and there was no required voltage for the proper functioning of the said motor. He repaired the motor and directed the complainant to rectify the voltage shortage and also to replace the accessories with good quality for the actual performance of the motor. The complainant again made complaint about the performance of the motor and on inspection it was found that the complainant has not rectified the mistakes which was pointed to him. Even though there was no mistake in the motor 1st opposite party has even replaced it with a new motor so as to maintain good relation <br /> <br /> with the customer and also requested to rectify the above problems.<br /> <br /> The 1st opposite party further submits that there is no contract with the complainant so as to draw the desired limits of water to the satisfaction of the complainant from the bore well. He is not responsible for the poor functioning of motor due to shortage of water, voltage and standard of inadequate accessories attached. The complaint is filed with some ulterior motive so as to lower the reputation of the 1st opposite party. He was always ready to rectify or repair the defects of the motor if any within the warranty period. If there is anything wrong with the motor it is only due to the acts of the complainant for which 1st opposite party is not liable. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from his part and hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs.<br /> <br /> complainant filed an application to appoint an expert commissioner to inspect the motor. Application was allowed and expert commissioner had inspected the said motor and filed a detailed report. No objection was filed to the commissioner's report by both parties.<br /> <br /> Complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavit. Expert Commissioner's report was marked as Ext.C1.<br /> <br /> Matter was heard.<br /> <br /> We have perused the affidavits as well as the report filed by the expert commissioner. According to the commissioner no defect is noted in the pump especially in the discharge. Based upon the report of the commissioner, we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service on the part of the <br /> <br /> opposite parties .<br /> <br /> It is therefore viewed that the complaint is devoid of any merits and hence dismissed without costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of October, 2007<br /> <br /> President I/C (Sd)<br /> <br /> Member (Sd)<br /> <br /> Forwarded/By Order,<br /> Sd/-<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br />