By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The facts of the complaint in brief is as follows:- The Opposite Party installed a Biogas plant for the Complainant for which Rs.11,500/- was received by the Opposite Parties. At the time of installation of the plant the assurance given by the Opposite Party was that the biogas plant would supply gas continuously at least for three hours and the function of the plant was guaranteed for a period three years from the time of consumption. The biogas plant could not supply gas as assured by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant requested the Opposite Party from time to time for the repair of the biogas plant. The request on the part of the Complainant was to construct a model named 'dinabandu' whereas the Opposite Party constructed 'doom' type. As a result of the repeated request from the Complainant the Opposite Party substitute the 'doom' with an another one. Even after the substitution the defect of the biogas plant continued. The Opposite Parties had not given any document of warranty to the Complainant, the biogas plant constructed by the Andhyodaya Company is defective and not good enough for use. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to.

1. Refund the Complainant Rs.11,500/- the amount paid towards the cost of plant construction.

2. Towards the compensation of loss incurred the Opposite Parties are to be directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 15,000/- in total Rs.26,500/- is to be given to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version on receiving the notice. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows. The 1^st Opposite Party admitted the

construction of the biogas plant which was completed on 12.2.2005. The performance of the biogas plant of the Complainant was proper and satisfactory to the complainant. In the application given by the Complainant for the membership in ' Andhyodaya Carbon Credit Scheme' the Complainant recorded that biogas plant's function is satisfactory above all Agricultural Officer, Nenmeni had issued a certificate in conformity that the function of the biogas plant is satisfactory. If the Complainant requires for the repair of the plant the 1^st Opposite Party is ready to render the service if the expense is met by the Complainant.

3. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version. The facts in brief are as follows. The 2^nd Opposite Party had no role as a coordinator in the office of the 1^st Opposite Party, the 2^nd Opposite Party acted as a Office staff in the office of the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party had given guarantee for the work and the construction of the biogas plant was under sole responsibility of the 1^st Opposite Party. In the application given by the Complainant for the membership in ' Andhyodaya Carbon Credit Scheme' the Complainant has done an entry that the work is satisfactory. The construction of the Complainant was under responsibilities of the 1^st Opposite Party and the work was carried out by the trained persons. The responsibilities of the 2^nd Opposite Party was to direct the applications to the 1^st Opposite Party and other as such an office staff has to do apart from that the 2^nd Opposite Party is only a paid employee on salary basis. More over the 2^nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 2^nd Opposite Party.

4. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether any deficiency in service in the act of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 to A5 are marked as the documents for the complainant. The Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit, Exts. B1, B2, B3 are the documents filed for the Opposite Parties. The complainant and opposite Parties have rendered oral evidence.

6. The case of the Complainant is that the biogas plant constructed by the Opposite Party is not supplying gas and it is defective. The defect in construction is the reason for the non function of the plant, the repair of the plant had no result. The Opposite Party interalia contended that the plant is satisfactory in function. The documents in support of the contention of the Opposite Party is Ext.B2 which is an application form given for ' Andhyodaya Carbon Credit Scheme' relying on the entry in the application form the function of the plant is satisfactory. In oral evidence of the Complainant it is stated that when the plant was completed the application signed by the Complainant was received. In course of use the defect was noted. The other contention of the Opposite Party regarding the function of the plant sticking to the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer who is examined as OPW2. It is deposed by OPW2 that the certificate Ext.B3 was issued without knowing the function of the plant. She has not inspected the plant and was not aware of the nature of construction of the plant and its quality. The Agriculture Officer has not even seen the plant she cannot say anything about whether the plant had worked in the earlier period. The Expert Commissioner inspected the plant and reported that plant is leaking and not in working conditions. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties has not even filed any objection to the commission report, in the oral testimony of the Expert Commissioner it is further deposed that the plant was inspected twice. The leakage of the gas was the manufacturing defect of the plant is not because anything else, it is due to the defect in construction. The report of the Commission is marked as Ext.C1. The biogas plant constructed by the Opposite Party for the Complainant does not serve the purpose due to defect in construction. Even after the repair including the change of 'doom' the plant found to be worthless. The 2^nd Opposite Party is a program coordinator according to the Ext.A4, however it is brought out in oral testimony that he is only an employee of the 1^st Opposite Party. The service rendered by the Opposite Party to the complainant is found deficit and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party admitted that the amount received for the construction of the biogas plant is Rs.11,500/- the Complainant is not served the purpose. Even after the repairs done by the Opposite Party the plant could not be put in rail. The amount received for the construction of the biogas plant by the 1^st Opposite Party is Rs.11,500/-. The 2^nd Opposite Party is only a paid employee who worked under the first one the 2^nd Opposite Party is absolved from the liability. We are in the opinion that the 1^st Opposite Party has to refund the amount received from the Complainant along with cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to refund the Complainant Rs.11,500/- (Rupees Eleven thousand Five hundred only) the amount received for the construction of the plant. The Complainant is also entitled for the cost Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). This is to be complied within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29^th April 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Binesh Agriculture

CW1. Lazer P O. Business.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1 Andrus O U Construction of Biogas Plant.

OPW2 Rekha T Agricultural Officer, Bathery.

OPW3. Thankachan M D Programme Officer.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:27.03.2007.

A2. Notice. dt:20.03.2007.

A3. True copy of the receipt. dt:22.3.2006.

A4. Completion certificate. dt:25.3.2006

A5. Authorization Memo. dt:19.11.2008.

C1. Commission Report.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Authorization Memo.

B2. Copy of Application Form dt:17.09.2007.

B3. Copy of Certificate. dt:30.08.2007.