Kerala

Idukki

CC/153/2021

Roy Vargese - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anju Geroge - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 06/11/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of August  2022

Present :

                     SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                     PRESIDENT

                     SMT.ASAMOL P.                                 MEMBER                      

                     SRI.AMPADY K.S.                               MEMBER                    

CC NO.153/2021

Between

Complainant                        :  Roy Varghese,

                                                Vettiyankal,

                                                Narakakkanam P.O., Idukki Colony.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                        And

Opposite Party                     : 1 . Anju George,

                                                    UDITO Hearing Care, Chirathalattu Building,

                                                     Near Private Bus Stand,

                                                     Nagampadam, Kottayam – 1

                                               2 .  Arun Kumar,

                                                     UDITO Hearing Care, Chirathalattu Building,

                                                      Near Private Bus Stand,

                                                      Nagambadam, Kottayam – 1

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

O R D E R

SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

          Complainant's case is briefly discussed hereunder:-

 .
          1 .Complainant is a partly deaf person.  He has been working as an Assistant Registrar in Co-Operative Department.  Opposite parties are staff of an institution which is named as UDITO Hearing Care.  But, he doesn't know whether these persons are owners of the above said institution.  On 03/06/2020, complainant and his wife Bincy approached the branch of the institution at Kattappana and thereupon opposite parties had done the hearing test of complainant.  Thereafter, first opposite party had described about many hearing aids.  Accordingly, complainant decided to purchase invisible hearing aids for both ears.  For that he had paid Rs.25,000/- as advance payment to opposite parties.  Total amount of the above said hearing aid was Rs.70,000/-.  Therefore, as per the demand of opposite party, complainant transferred Rs.45,000/- as balance amount to Federal Bank account of opposite parties on the next day itself.  At that time, opposite party had

                                                                                                         (Cont....2)

 

-2-

 

 assured that invisible hearing aids would be given to complainant within 3 weeks.

 

2 . After about one month, opposite party called complainant by phone and said that to come to Kattappana office.  As per that, complainant and his wife Bincy reached there.  At that time, opposite parties gave two hearing aids.  But these hearing aids were not in visible as ordered by complainant.  So, complainant said to them that these  hearing aids no need for him and he demanded invisible hearing aids which were promised by opposite party at the time of payment.  But opposite party requested complainant to use than temporarily and that later they would be given invisible hearing aids as required by complainant.  Opposite party had taken the impressions of canals of complainant's both ears.  Accordingly, complainant returned from there with the hearing aids which were given by opposite party for using  temporarily.

 

3 . Again after one and half month, first opposite party had given another hearing aids set to complainant.  It was also visible and for fixing in first canal of ears.   So, complainant didn't receive these hearing aids.  Also, complainant said to opposite party that if there are no invisible hearing aids, refund the amount which was paid to opposite party for purchasing it.  But opposite party demanded Rs.70,000/- as additionally for both invisible hearing aids.  At that time, opposite party had informed complainant that price of one invisible hearing aid is Rs.70,000/-.  After this information, complainant demanded  opposite party to give at least one invisible hearing aid to fix to one ear for Rs.70,000/- which he had paid otherwise refund the amount to complainant.  But opposite party did not accept it also.  Therefore complainant has prayed the following reliefs.

 

1 . Opposite parties may be directed to fix invisible hearing aid in second canal of complainant's one ear within 15 days.

 

2 . Otherwise, opposite parties may be directed to refund Rs.70,000/- along with 8% interest of 17 months Rs.7933.

 

3 . Also, opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.4,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

                                                                                                        (Cont....3)

-3-

 

Notice has served to opposite parties.  But they didn't appear before the Commission.  No written version filed by opposite parties.

 

Complainant has adduced oral evidence and 2 documents produced.  There were marked as Ext.P1 and  Ext.P2.  Complainant was partly examined as PW1. He prayed  in his examination that Rs.70,000/- which he had paid to opposite party for invisible hearing aids may be refunded.  Also he deposed that it is not needed as in the complaint.

 

No version filed.  No evidence adduced by opposite parties.  The point which arise for consideration is,

 

(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite  parties?

 

(b) If so, what reliefs are entitled to complainant?

 

The points are considered.

 

We have heard complainant.  We have perused the pre examination of complainant and the documents which were marked as Exhibits.  As per Ext.P1, it is evident that complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- to opposite parties on 03/06/2020 as advance for purchasing hearing aids.  This is the copy of receipt issued from opposite parties and Ext.P2 is statement of account of State Bank of India, Idukki Branch.  As per Ext.P2, it is seen that complainant had transferred Rs.25,000/- on 04/06/2020 and Rs.20,000/- on 05/06/2020 to Federal Bank.  According to complainant, these amounts had transferred  to opposite party's account of Federal Bank.  Opposite parties have not tendered any evidence against the case of complainant.  We are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to refund the amount which he had paid for purchasing invisible hearing  aids from opposite parties.  Also, to get interest for the above said amount and compensation for deficiency in service.  First relief in the complaint is for a  direction against opposite party to fix invisible hearing aid in second canal of complainant's one ear within 15 days.  But, complainant has prayed that refunding the amount along with

 

                                                                                                         (Cont....4)

-4-

interest and compensation is needed because he has lost his belief to opposite party, so first relief in  the complaint is not necessary.  Hence complaint is allowed in part as hereunder.

 

Opposite parties are directed to  refund Rs.70,000/- which the complainant had paid to opposite party along with interest Rs.7933/- as prayed in the complaint and also opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to complainant within 30 days from the date of copy of the receipt of this order, failing which the amount Rs.81,933/- shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of petition, till its realisation.

 

 

          Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of  August 2022.

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                             SMT.ASAMOL P.,  MEMBER                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S.,   MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 – Roy Varghese

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 – Receipt dated 03/06/2020.

Ext.P2 – Statement of account.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil

 

                                                                                               Forwarded by Order

 

  

                                                                                          ASSISTANT REGISTRAR