By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Brief say of the complainant is that opposite party supplied and installed a motor pump for his borewell on payment of Rs.21,000/-. Opposite party charged higher price than the actual price of the motor which according to him is only Rs.10000/-. The motor pump is defective a not working at all. The pump was for the use of supplying water to his new bakery shop which was to be inaugurated on 27-8-1998. Due to delay in supply of the pump and defect of the pump supplied inauguration of the shop had to be postponed to 25-2-1999. This caused him much loss and hardships. He alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against opposite party. Complainant claims refund, compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version specifically denying the allegations in the complaint as false and incorrect. It is admitted that on 22-2-1999 opposite party supplied and installed 1.5 H>P> Blugga Submersible pumpset to the complainant. Opposite party has received only Rs.15,500/- which includes price of the pump and installation charges. The pump was functioning properly. On 20/3/1999 complainant informed opposite party that the pump is not working. On examination opposite party found that the motor was burnt due to working of the pump in low voltage. On the same day opposite party replaced it with a new motor pump. The pump has no defect and is still working. Opposite party is still using it for supply of water. That no excess price was charged. The inauguration was originally fixed to 25-2-1999 itself and there was no occasion for postponement. That opposite party did take part in the inauguration. Complainant informed opposite party that he was getting Kerala Water Authority (PHED) water supply and wanted opposite party to take back the motor pump to which opposite party refused. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P7 marked on behalf of complainant. On the side of opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced. No affidavit filed and no documents marked. Ext.C1 is the Commission report. Due to vacancy in the post of President in 2003, there was no sitting of the Forum for a long time. This case first came up before us on 7-8-23007 and was finally heard on 22-11-2007.<br /> <br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are whether opposite party has committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. If so what are the reliefs the complainant is entitled to.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant alleges that opposite party charged higher price the actual price of the motor. He contends that he has paid Rs.21,000/- to opposite party. Opposite party disputes payments of Rs.21,000/- and claims to have received only Rs.15,500/- as total consideration for price of the motor pump and installation charges. Ext.P5 is the bill dated, 22-2-1999 for Rs.15,500/- issued by opposite party. In Ext.P5 Rs.15,500/- is paid towards supply of 1.5 H.P.Blugga Pumpset with standard accessories and installation such as cable and installation charges. According to complainant apart from this he paid Rs.5,500/- on 18-8-1998 and thus paid total amount of Rs.21,000/- Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by opposite party for Rs.5,500/- dated, 18-8-1998. In P1 it is clearly dated that the amount is received as advance for 1.5 H.P. Blugga 300 feet submersible pumpset with panel board and all fittings. Evidently P1 is the receipt for the amount paid as advance to the total consideration. The contention of complainant that Rs.5,500/- was paid in addition to Rs.15,500/- is false and untenable. Ext.P4 is the quotation for Rs.18,000/-. Both sides do not have a case that any amount was transacted as per this document. Thus complainanthas failed to prove that he paid Rs.21,000/- for the motor pump to opposite party. Ext.P5 proves that the amount paid is Rs.15,500/- including installation charges. He alleges that the price of the motor pump is only Rs.10,000/- and opposite party has charged higher price. Apart from the hearsay evidence complainant has not adduced any reliable evidence to prove that actual price of the motors pump is Rs.10,000/-. We find that complainant has failed to establish and prove that opposite party has charged higher price for the alleged motor pump.<br /> <br /> 6. The allegation of the complainant that the motor pump is defective is stoutly opposed by opposite party. According to opposite party the motor pump has no defects at all and complainant is still using it. The burden to prove this fact then lies on the complainant. On application made by complainant an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the pump and report whether it is in working condition; and also to report whether opposite party was using any other motor pump for water supply. Ext.C1 is the report submitted by Advocate Commissioner K.Gangadharan dated, 26-4-2000. In 1st para of the report it is submitted that there is yet another pump set used by opposite party for supply of water to his shop. It is further reported that while testing the function of the motor in the submersed condition opposite party brought to notice that one electric wire out of the three connected to the pump was unable to carry electric current. Opposite party suggested to change the wire and text the motor. This was objected by the complainant. Thus Ext.C1 report is to the effect that inspection could not be completed due to the obstruction and non-co-operation of the complainant. We have no hesitation to draw adverse inference against the complainant for not co-operating with (obstructing) the inspection of a Court Officer/Advocate Commissioner. We hold that complainant has failed to prove that the motor pump supplied by opposite party is defective.<br /> <br /> 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert our discussion to events that happened during the pendency of the case. On 7-6-2001 opposite party filed application seeking direction to the complainant to return the alleged motor pump so that opposite party can supply a new one. The prayer was allowed and opposite party replaced the alleged motor with a new one. This is admitted by PW1 in chief examination. Even after this complainant chose to proceed with the litigation claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the loss and hardships caused due to postponement of the inauguration of the shop and supply of defective motor. Ext.P6 is the notice which shows that the inauguration of the shop was to be held on 25-2-1999. According toe complainant the opening of the shop was fixed earlier as 27-8-1998 and it was postponed to 25-2-1999 due to delay in supply of motor pump. There is no evidence apart from the interested testimony of PW1 that the inauguration was previously fixed to 27-8-1999. Complainant has failed to prove any case in his favour. We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.<br /> <br /> 8. In the result the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 19th day of December, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1<br /> PW1 : Moosa, complainant.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P7<br /> <br /> Ext.P1 : Photo Copy of the Receipt issued by opposite party <br /> for Rs.5,500/- dated, 18-8-1998.<br /> Ext.P2 : Photo Copy of the cash bill for Rs.5950/- dated, 18-2-1999<br /> Ext.P3 : Advertisement for inauguration.<br /> Ext.P4 : Photo Copy of the Quotation for Rs.18,100/- <br /> Ext.P5 : Photo Copy of the receipt for Rs.15,500/-<br /> Ext.P6 : Photo Copy of the lawyer notice dated, 5-4-1999 sent by <br /> complainant's advocate to opposite party.<br /> Ext.P7 : Photo Copy of the guarantee card.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Court document marked:<br /> Ext.C1 : Commissioner's report.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />