KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:270/2007 JUDGMENT DATED:1..4..2009 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Dr.Jyothi Basu, Madhava Vilasom, : APPELLANT Mylapra Town.P.O, Pathanamthitta. (By Adv: M/s M.Renjith & Rajasree.R.S) V. Binu, Proprietor, Prompt Services, Kulathumuri Bldg., : RESPONDENT Kumbazha, Pathanamthitta. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC:17/2007 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. The Forum dismissed the complaint. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had entrusted a fully automatic Electrolux washing machine worth Rs.23,000/- to the opposite party, the authorized service centre of Electrolux, Kelvinator, Voltas and Alvin washing machines. The machine was given by to respondent on 10..2..2005. On 12..2..2005 the machine was returned and an amount of Rs.850/- was collected as service charges. On the same day it was found that the machine is not working. The matter was informed to the opposite party and they took back the machine promising to repair it at there own expense and return it early. On demands made they were evading the returning of the machine and finally lawyer notice was sent, but there was no response. Hence deficiency of service is alleged and compensation of Rs.23,000/- towards the cost of the machine with interest at 18% and Rs.3000/- as cost claimed. 3. The respondents stood exparte. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4. 5. It is the observation of the Forum that as the complainant has not produced any receipt from the opposite party for taking the washing machine the 2nd time it stands not established that the washing machine was really handed over to the repairers. The Forum has also suggested that the matter may be settled in between the parties. 6. In appeal also the respondents/opposite party stood exparte. 7. We find that the case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1, the complainant which stands unchallenged. Further the complainant has also produced the cash bill for the repair done at first, copy of the lawyer notice, postal receipt and acknowledgement. In the circumstances and in the absence of any challenge to the testimony of PW1 we find that the Forum need not have disbelieved the complainant as such. The fact that the lawyer notice stands not replied to and the notice from the Forum also was accepted and no appearance made before the Forum by the opposite party are telling factors in favour of the case set up by the complainant. Hence we find that the order of the Forum cannot be sustained. All the same, the entire amount as claim cannot be allowed in the absence of objective evidence as to the purchase price and age of the machine, it appears that it would be reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the machine and compensation. The amount shall bear interest at 12% from the date of complaint. The complainant shall also be entitled for the cost of Rs.2500/-. The appeal is allowed as above. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER VL.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
