Date of filing : 29-01-2010 Date of order : 18-06-2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 24/2010 Dated this, the 18th day of June 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Vallyalakkal Thankamani, W/o.Kunhappan, Varakkad Thattu, } Complainant Bheemanadi Village, Po.Kottamala, Hosdurg Taluk (In Person) 1. Secretary, Raidco, Head Office, Kannur. } Opposite parties 2. Manager, Raidco, Kanhangad Branch Kanhangad. (In Person) O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT The complaint in brief is as follows: Complainant purchased an one H.P. Pumpset manufactured by opposite parties on 7-10-2008 for 8505/- rupees. It was intended for agricultural purpose. This Pumpset became defective within 6 months from the date of purchase. The oppose parties replaced the same when complained. The replaced pumpset also became defective within 6 months. But opposite parties refused to replace the same on demand. The pumpsets manufactured by opposite parties are very inferior quality and that is the reason for the frequent defects of pumpsets. Due to the non functioning of pumpset, thereby lack of irrigation, the plants became ruined and caused heavy loss. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite parties there is no designated person as Secretary in Raidco Managing Director in the proper person to be arrayed on behalf of Raidco. Since the opposite party is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act 1969 the complaint shall be submitted before Co-operative Tribunal and the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The pumpset purchased by the complainant on 7-10-2008 became defective on 3-6-2009 and the mechanic inspected the pumpset and found that there is low voltage in electricity. In such circumstance the working efficiency of the pumpset may vary and the intake of water by the pump will be lessened. Further the pumpset is installed using 50 meters long low quality electrical wire. This is also affects the efficiency of the working of the pumpset. However, they replaced the first pumpset and installed a new one. At the time of replacement the complainant was asked to take the above said factors seriously. But complainant did not care those matters and frequently used the pumpset. On receipt of complaint during inspection on 31-12-2009 also the pumpset was seen working in the same condition. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant examined as PW1. Exts A1 to A2 marked. Both sides heard. 4. During enquiry the second opposite party personally present before the Forum and submitted that if the electric wire used for drawing connection to the pumpset is substituted with the electrical cable wires specified by them, then the problem of the complainant can be solved. Complainant agreed to replace the wire. Hence the case is adjourned for further enquiry or settlement. Accordingly complainant purchased new cable wires for 4984/- rupees. But during subsequent sitting the complainant stated that even after replacing the electric wire the pumpset was not working and opposite party immediately replaced the pumpset with another one. The complainant submitted that the replaced pumpset is functioning with the old electrical cable also. Therefore it is clear that the complainant is unnecessarily compelled to replace the electric cable and the pumpset supplied by opposite party was defective. 5. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate their contentions. 6. The contention of opposite parties that the complaint is not maintainable since they are governed by Co-operative Societies Act is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena decision held that the FORA has jurisdiction to try the disputes alleging deficiency in service against the societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore it is clear that the complainant is unnecessarily compelled to purchase electric cable at the instance of opposite parties. That apart due to lack of irrigation her agricultural plants were ruined. All these are caused due to the deficient service of opposite parties. Therefore they are liable to compensate the complainant. 7. Relief & Costs The complainant purchased the pumpset for Rs.8505/- out of which her share less subsidy is Rs.4505/-. However, the opposite parties have replaced the pumpset. Complainant forced to purchase electric cable for Rs.4984/- without any purpose at the instance of opposite parties. She is entitled to get back that amount with costs. Though she stated that her agricultural crops are affected no evidence is produced to substantiate this claim. In the result complaint is partly allowed and the Managing Director, Raidco, Kannur and Manager, Raidco, Kanhangad Branch, Kanhangad jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss, hardships mental agony suffered by her together with cost of Rs.2500/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Failing which the compensation Rs.5000/- will carry interest @ 12% from the date of complaint till payment. Issue copy of this order to Managing Director, Raidco HO. Kannur. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. Bill A2. 5-4-10 Quotation. PW1. Thankamany. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ | 
