ORDER (Mr. K.C. Gupta, President) - This appeal has been directed by the opposite party Harbans Lal against order dated 8.11.2005 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to be as District Consumer Forum), vide which complaint of Mohan Singh, respondent (complainant) was accepted with costs and the appellant (OP) was directed to make submersible pump functional immediately and if any prepare of motor was required to be done, expenditure of the same would be borne by the respondent (complainant) but the bore, if necessary, was to be done by appellant at his cost at an early date. 2.Briefly stated the facts are that respondent was an agriculturist. He for the purpose of proper irrigation of his land had got installed submersible pump in his land on 29.9.2002 from the appellant after making payment. The appellant had assured that the bore would work properly for a period of 5 years while the motor would work at least for one year. However, submersible pump did not work properly and started giving trouble in April, 2004. 3.Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed. 4.The appellant contested the complaint and stated that respondent had not made full payment after the installation of the submersible pump in his land and a sum of Rs. 66,000 was outstanding against him and when he demanded the balance amount, then this complaint was filed. 5.Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. 6.After bearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 8.11.2005 accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 2,000 as stated in the earlier part of the judgment. 7.Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party has filed the present appeal. 8.None appeared on behalf of appellant although Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate had noted the date for 4.12.2007 for appearance in this Commission after it was received on transfer from Punjab State Consumer Commission by the order of Hon’ble National Commission. 9.We have heard counsel for the respondent Mr. Harsh Aggarwal and carefully gone through the file. 10.Respondent had placed on file his affidavit Ex.C-3 in which he had stated that after installation of submersible pump in his land appellant had given guarantee for its functioning from 12.10.2001 to 10.10.2007. But after some time submersible pump stated giving trouble and did not work properly. The main grouse of the appellant is that respondent had not made balance payment of Rs. But after some time submersible pump stated giving trouble and did not work properly. The main grouse of the appellant is that respondent had not made balance payment of Rs. 66,000 or Rs. 70,000. If he had not made any payment then appellant was free to file suit in the Civil Court. The appellant had admitted at the time of arguments in the District Consumer Forum that he was prepared to get the bore and submersible pump repaired. Since, the repair work was not done, so, alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed by the respondent. He has not filed any complaint regarding the motor as the guarantee of one year had elapsed. The appellant had not refused to get the bore repaired and to ensure that submersible pump started working properly. So, on the basis of his admission, the order was made. Even Local Commissioner was appointed to examine at the spot and to report about the working of submersible pump but since motor was not installed there and it would have taken five hours to put the system in working order, so Local Commissioner did not make any report. In such circumstances, it was duty of appellant to make the bore as well as submersible pump in a working order. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 11.Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. M.R.B. ——————