BAFNA AGENCY Vs. LIKHN LAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 26.2.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 112/2009, whereby the complaint was allowed and necessary directions were issued. Unsuccessful OP has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant had purchased Monoblock Pump of Techmo Company on 20.3.2009 for irrigating his agricultural land. The price of the aforesaid pump was Rs. 3,408, but it was sold for only a sum of Rs. 3,000, guarantee of one year was provided. On 29.4.2009, the said pump developed defects and was deposited with the OP on 30.4.2009. In view of the guarantee, on 1.5.2009, the OP handed over another Monoblock pump but the said pump was manufactured by Laxmi Company. Price of the said pump was only Rs. 2,400. This pump also did not lift water in the fields of the complainant and accordingly, the complainant intimated the OP. The OP in turn, assured of sending mechanic but up to 5.5.2010, no mechanic was sent and as the complainant was suffering day -to -day loss of vegetable crop due to non -irrigation, he served legal notice on the OP and complaint was filed. It was also averred in the complaint that earlier on 24.2.2009, the complainant had purchased submersible pump of Prince Company for Rs. 10,230, as that pump also did ot work properly, he had returned the pump and purchased the Techmo Monoblock Pump. The complainant alleged that OP had committed deficiency in service by handing over defective goods to the complainant, consequently various reliefs were claimed by the complainant.

(3.) IN written version, the OP raised preliminary objection to the effect that the complainant is supposed to file complaint regarding his grievance butpresent complainant had filed only an application, which is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this ground. Various averments of the complaint were denied. It was averred that on 20.3.2009, the complainant had purchased a Monoblock Pump for Rs. 3,000 on credit basis with warranty of one year and no guarantee as has been alleged by the complainant, was provided. The allegation regarding defect in the said pump and deposit of the pump with OP on 30.4.2009 was also rebutted. It was admitted in the written version that the complainant had purchased a submersible pump of Prince Company from the OP on 24.2.2009 but it was denied that the said pump was returned to the OP. It was also denied that the OP had given Monoblock Pump of Laxmi Company instead of the earlier Monoblock Pump of Techmo Company and there was difference of price inm both the aforesaid pumps. In additional statements, it was stated that the complainant had purchased the pump on credit basis and when the OP approached the complainant for making payment, the complaint was filed on false pretexts. It was also averred in additional pleadings that the complainant had purchased submersible pump but there was no complaint regarding the said pump nor the complainant has claimed any relief towards the said pump, actually the complainant has sold the said pump to Gokaran Sahu. The plea that complainant is not consumer' as he has not made payment of value of the pump purchased by him has also been taken. It was averred that as the complainant was known to the OP, the pump was provided on credit basis. It was also averred that there was no defect in the pump sold to the complainant. The reason for not proper working of the pump was that there was less water in bore and it is well known fact that during the summer season, deep bores (150 -200 fts.) also get dry. On receiving complaint, he had sent the mechanic. There was no deficiency in service committed by the OP. OP claimed Rs. 20,000 towards damages and Rs. 3,000 towards cost of pump.