This is a complaint fled under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `18,206 including the excess amount received and compensation with cost of the proceedings.

          The case of the complainant  is that he has purchased a CRI Aakash pump et on  16.2.2010 from opposite party under the subsidy issued by Krishi Bhavan, Vengad by giving  `9206.The opposite party had suggested the pulling power  after knowing the depth of the well. But the complainant came to know that the pump set is not suitable for the complainant’s well after installing the same to the well. The complainant informed the mater to the opposite party and the opposite party compelled the complainant to issue a letter as stated by opposite party and after issuing this the opposite party replaced the pump set on 14.5.2010 after giving `1300 as the difference in price. Moreover opposite party’s men had extracted `1020 as service charge for installing the pump set. The opposite party has not issued the guarantee card to the complainant. Later on the complainant came to know that the pump set has worth only `6000 after enquiry from other shops. So the opposite party had extracted `3000 from the complainant illegally. The opposite party has shown unfair trade practice by receiving excessive price and hence the complainant is entitled to get the excess amount received by the opposite party. Even though the complainant has issued a lawyer notice the opposite party issued reply notice stating untenable contentions. Hence this complaint.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version admitting that the complainant has purchased a pump set as per permit No.KBV.66/09-10 of Krishi Bhavan, Vengad on 16.12.2010. The price of such pump set was fixed as per the agreement between Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Manufacturer of CRI pumps. Opposite party has no duty to inspect the well before selling. The opposite party has sold the pump set as requested by the complainant in accordance with the permit issued by the Krishi Bhavan.  The opposite party has issued the pump set as required by the complainant’s needs. But later on as per the complaint made by the complainant the opposite party inspected the well and realized that the complainant had installed the pump set without considering the depth of the well and  height of the  tank.  Later on as per the request the opposite party had replaced the pump set after receiving `1300 more as the difference in price of the pump sets. The pump was installed by the complainant’s people and not opposite party’s men. The opposite party had replaced the pump after the use of two months as a matter of settlement and not because of any liability. The opposite party has never received excess price. So the complainant has not caused any mental, physical or financial hardships due to the act of the opposite party and hence the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in any way and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.   Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of

    opposite party?

3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as

     prayed in  the complaint?

          4.  Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and Exts.A1 to A5.

Issue No.1 to 3

          Complainant’s case is that he has purchased a one HP pump set as per the subsidy rate given by Vengad Krishi Bhavan and the opposite party has delivered the same which was not suitable for the well of the complainant, even tough the opposite party’s men inspected the well before delivery. Later on the opposite party replaced the pump set by receiving `1300 as difference of price. The opposite party had collected excessive price from the complainant which amounts to unfair practice and deficient service. In order to prove the case complainant examined PW1 to PW3 and produced documents such as cash/credit bill, copy of lawyer notice, reply notice, copy of letter written by complaint to opposite party and quotation. The opposite party admits that complainant has purchased a CRI Aakash pump set and later on it was replaced and `1300 was received by him. Opposite party contended that he has not inspected the well before supplying the pump set. But complainant examined PW2 who has accompanied with the complainant at the time of purchase of the alleged pump set. He deposed that “  ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-\pT Rm\pT Htc Znh-k-amWv ]¼v FSp-¯-Xp. OPbpsS shop \n¶mWv ]¼v hm§n-bXp H¶n-¨mWv Rm\p-TCu tIknse ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-\pT ]¼v FSp-¡m³ t]mb-Xp. th§v#mSv Irjn-`-hsâ ]²Xn {]Im-cT A\p-h-Zn-¨-XmWv R§Ä¡v c­p-t]À¡pT .  Cluster groupA\p-h-Zn-¨-XmWv¶. He further deposed that “]¼v FSp-¯-Xnsâ  InW-dnsâ BgT  OPtbmSv ]dªv  OPbpsS Poh-\-¡m-c³ h¶p t\m¡n c­v t]À¡pT Htc ]¼v aXn F¶p ]d-ªp. ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ InW-dn\p Fsâ InW-dn-t\-¡mÄ 2 tIm IqSp-X BgT D­mbn-«pT Htc ]¼v aXn-sb¶p h¶p t\m¡nb Poh-\-¡m-c³ ]dªp”. The opposite party has not come into the box in order to rebut the evidence rendered by the complainant. More over the opposite party admittedly has not given the warranty card. So from the above discussion it is seen that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in providing the   pump set to the complainant and in not giving the warranty card. It is true that the opposite party had replaced the same, but he has admittedly received `746 as value of depreciation. But he is not entitled to receive the same from the complainant, since it was happened due to the deficient service of opposite party in providing pump set having sufficient pulling. So the complainant is entitled to receive the above said amount and the warranty card from the opposite party.

          The complainant further contended that the price for the pump set received by opposite party is excessive than in other shops. But he has not taken any steps or produced documents to prove his case and hence we are discarding his contention as such. From the above discussion it is seen that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and received `746 illegally by way of depreciation. So the complainant is entitled to get refunded the above said amount of `746 along with `1000 as cost of this litigation and the warranty card and order passed accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund `746 (Rupees Seven hundred and forty six only) and to give warranty along with   `1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                         Sd/-                        Sd/-

                     President                Member

  APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Cash bill issued by OP

A2.  Copy of lawyer notice sent to OP

A3. Reply notice

A4. Copy of the letter sent to OP

A5. Proforma invoice issued by Regional Agro Industrial Development co. operative of Kerala Ltd.

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

PW2.Rajan

PW3.C.P.Udayakumar

 Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.