CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.319/11
Thursday the 29th day of March, 2012
Petitioner : A.M. Jose,
Chalayil House,
Vallikadu PO
Ettumanoor East
Kotttayam.-686 631.
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) M/s.A.B.Systems of communications
Near Bharath Hospital
Azad lane, Kottayam-686 001.
2) The Reliance Inform Services
A&B Arcade S.A Road,
Kadavanthara, Kochi.
ORDER
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The petitioner’s case is as follows:
The petitioner had a PCO Booth Franchisee at Vallikadu junction, Ettumanoor from 15/07/05 onwards. As the functioning of the booth was dull, he stopped the said booth on 06-09-10 and the system was returned to the first opposite party. Even after repeated requests the first opposite party has not returned the security amount Rs.1000/- to the petitioner. The first opposite party says that the second opposite party had not refunded the amount. A registered letter was issued but no response till date. Hence the petitioner filed this complaint claiming refund of the security amount Rs.1000/- with interest @ 12% and costs.
Notice was served to the opposite parties but the opposite parties were called absent and were set exparty.
Points for considerations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence consists of deposition of the petitioner and Ext.A1&A2.
Point No.1
The complainant deposed that he bought a coin box from the opposite parties by
depositing Rs.1000/- to them. Evidencing the aforesaid deposit, the complainant produced original receipt and it is marked as Ext.A1. According to him the coin box was fitted for earning his livelihood. The complainant further deposed that as there was no one to use the said coin box, he returned the said box to the opposite parties. Evidencing the aforementioned return of coin box, the complainant produced the original service termination form and it is marked as Ext.A2. The complainant next deposed that the deposit amount of Rs.1000/- was not returned. As the opposite parties chose not to contest, the allegations of the complainant against the opposite parties remain unchallenged. From the documents placed on record we find that the opposite parties are deficient in their service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is allowed.
The opposite parties 1 and 2 are ordered to refund the deposit amount of
Rs.1000/-to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and litigation cost Rs.500/-.
This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till payment.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-Original receipt
Ext.A2-Oriiginal termination receipt
Documents of opposite parties
Nil
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
