M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party before the lower forum, who suffered an award at the instance of the deceased complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The deceased complainant by name N. Nalllaperumal had purchased a submersible motor manufactured Texmo Company for irrigating his fields as per bill dt.17.9.200. The appellant, after the payment of a sum of Rs.50000/- or so supplied a motor and installed the same also collecting a charge of Rs.3000/-. As reported in the complaint, the motor supplied and installed has not functioned effectively serving its purpose of pumping water, resulting a complaint to the appellant/supplier. The appellant after inspecting or otherwise satisfied that the original motor supplied by them was defective, substituted another motor as if it is a brand new one. Believing the words of the appellant, the complainant also installed the same, but it proved worthless since the said motor also not functioned well as expected. Thereafter, the complainant approached the consumer action group and negotiations by them also ended in futile, compelling the deceased to approach the District Forum asking for the return of Rs.26600/-, being the value of the motor supplied, installation charges as well as compensation of Rs.50000/- and for cost.
(3.) The complaint was opposed by the appellant as if he has not supplied any motor to the complainant, that the complainant appears to have fabricated the bills as if it was issued by the appellant and that filing the vexatious petition he was unnecessarily dragged on to the Forum, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint, with exemplary cost.;