CHANDRA PRAKASH PATIDAR Vs. MAHESH KUMAR AND BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) IT was the case of the petitioner/complainant before the District Forum that he had purchased a motor -pump for agricultural purpose for a consideration of Rs. 13,250, but it was not giving proper service as it was unable to lift the water from 360 ft. depth. The matter was taken up with the respondent and he replaced the machine after collecting certain charges, but even then it was not lifting the water, a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, was filed before the District Forum praying for replacement of the pump along with cost of Rs. 15,000 and loss of crop valued at Rs. 1,25,000. The matter was contested by the respondent. The District Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. We see that the State Commission has already directed the refund of the cost along with interest @ 9% p.a. as also compensation of Rs. 5,000 along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Any compensation with regard to crop loss cannot be gone into by consumer fora as that would call for detailed examination, which the consumer fora cannot go in its summary jurisdiction. The other pleas with regard to expenditure of Rs. 2,200 incurred by him, when the first pump was replaced. In my view, this would fall within the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission.