2.          Moni,

Staff,

Ashik Rubber’s

3.          Varghese,

Vengathanath House,

Vandanpathal P.O

Mundakkayam.

O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President

Case of the petitioner, filed on 24..7..2010, is as follows:

Petitioner entrusted 717.400 kg. rubber sheet to the 3^rd opposite party to  sell it in the rubber shop owned by  first opposite party.  First opposite party had given only Rs. 143/- per kg. as the price of the rubber sheet.  At the time of sale of  rubber sheet petitioner was admitted in a hospital. When  the petitioner was discharged from  the hospital  from newspaper petitioner  learned that the price of 1 kg. of rubber sheet at the time of sale of the petitioner rubber sheet was Rs. 152/-,180/-, 165/- etc. According to the petitioner due to the act of the opposite party petitioner sustained a loss of Rs. 40 /- per 1 k.g. of rubber sheet.  Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in not giving the actual

-2-

price  for the rubber sheet given by  the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service.  So, he prays for a direction to the opposite parties  to compensate the petitioner for the  loss sustained to him.

            Notices were sent to the opposite party.  Opposite party has not entered appearance  or filed any version.  So, opposite party was set ex-parte.

Points for determinations are:

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice ?

ii)                   Relief and costs?

            Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 to A4 series documents on the side of the petitioner.

Point No. 1

            Crux of the case of the petitioner is that petitioner has got a less price of  Rs. 40/- than the prevalent market value for the 717.400 gm. of Rubber sheet given by the petitioner to the 3^rd opposite party.  Petitioner produced photo copy of the paper cutting showing the price of the rubber  said document is marked as Ext. A4 series.  From Ext. A4 series document it can be seen that   price   given  to the petitioner for his rubber sheet is  is not in accordance with the prevalent market value . Even though Ext. A4 series paper cutting does not show  the date of   newspaper.  In the absence of contra  evidence we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner.  In  our view act of the opposite party in not giving the actual prevalent price, to  the rubber sheet of the petitioner , amount to deficiency in service. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

-3-

Point No. 2

            In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and  petitioner is entitled for reliefs sought for.  In the result  opposite party 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to compensate the petitioner  for the loss sustained to him.  Opposite party 1 to 3 are ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings.  Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.  Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order.  If the order is not complied with within one month petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from  the date of filing of the petition till realization

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  18th  day of December, 2010.

            Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-

            Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

            Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

APPENDIX

Document for the petitioner

Ext. A1:            Copy of the receipt issued by the Ashik Ismail Rubbers.

Ext. A2:            Copy of receipt dated: Nil

Ext. A3:            Copy of the receipt issued by the Highrange  Hospital Dtd: 18..5..2010

Ext. A4 series   Copy of the news paper cuttings. .

Documents for the Opposite parties

                        Nil.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.