BHAGVATI TRADERS vs SHASHI PARGANIHA

-THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directed against the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ''District Forum'' for convenience).

THE proceedings arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent against the opposite parties/appellants before the District Forum. It was averred by the complainant that she purchased a submersible pump from the opposite party No. 1 (who is the dealer of the said pump) under Bill No. 1070 on 18.3.2002. A warranty card for a period of one year was also given to the complainant/respondent assuring that the pump will be replaced free of charge in case of any defect. THE fitting and installation of the pump was also done by the appellants/ respondents. THE pump did not function properly and was lifting water just like a tullu pump and required lot of time for filling the tank. On being contacted the dealer/appellant No. 1 assured that it will function properly after some time. On 30.6.2002 the pump stoped functioning altogether. The appellant No. 1 on being contacted did not respond properly and later after making complaints several times sent his mechanic who informed that a capacitor will have to be installed, the mechanic had to be called for starting it every time.

The complainant also sent written letter to the appellants on 16.7.2002 by fax and the same do not appear to have been replied.

LATER the dealer appellant No. 1 informed the complainant/respondent that the pump will have to be replaced since it has developed defects that the pump is not covered by warranty. The complainant/respondent had to pay Rs. 4,400/- towards cost of the pump. The dealer also took the defective pump away. The complainant has filed the copy of the bill, warranty card and the slip asking for Rs. 4,400/- through the messenger, in support of her claim. Again despite replacing the pump the pump stopped functioning whereupon the dealer informed that the switchboard is defective and will have to be replaced. The switchboard has since been replaced after filing of the complaint with the District Forum but neither the defective pump has been returned nor the amount of Rs. 4,400/- returned to the respondent. The complainant respondent had prayed for the refund of Rs. 4,400/- already paid and the award of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- for mental harassment.

THE appellants neither appeared before the District Forum nor cared to file any reply. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 10.3.2003 found the respondents deficient in service and ordered the refund of Rs. 4,400/- as well as Rs. 500/- as cost of the complaint. The appellants have resisted the impugned order on the ground that the order is arbitrary and has been passed with perusal of the documents in the complaint. It is also averred that there are discrepancies in the documents produced and the complaint. The cost of the pump has been shown as Rs. 9,675/- in the bills produced by the complainant and it is not narrated that on what count Rs. 4,400/- were paid. The appellant also argued that the guarantee did not cover the pump, it only covered the motor. It is difficult to accept this argument. It is like separating a tree from a root-a tree has no existence without a root and the root has no meaning without a tree.

ON scrutiny of the record it appears that in all the complainant paid Rs. 11,195/- to the dealer. This included the cost of the 1 HP 16 stage pump (Rs. 9,675/-) fittings and charges for installations.

IN the absence of any reply or affidavit on the part of the appellants the contention of the complainant has to be accepted in full. It remains unexplained as to why the appellants chose neither to reply the letter sent by fax nor the complaint filed in the District Forum. The Counsel for the complainant/respondent strongly defended the impugned order.

In view of the facts of the case and material on record we are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly found the appellants deficient in service and the impugned order is affirmed.

THE appellants/opposite parties shall bear their own cost and pay Rs. 1,000/- as the cost of the appeal to the complainants/respondents. Appeal dismissed.