ORDER

SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party  to  pay  sum of  58,764/- as the cost of the product and Rs.10,000/- a  compensation   to the complainant  for the  deficiency of service on his part.

  The case of the complainant in brief :

   The opposite party has given wide advertisement in connection with the  i-Leaf doors and windows with an assurance that the same has been in good quality  and lasting for 20 years without any rest and colour diminishing.  The opposite party  approached the complainant with  i-Leaf brochure stating that opposite party being the dealer of  i-Leaf doors and windows.  By believing the words and advertisement of opposite party the complainant ordered  i-Leaf doors with  specification 1 steel door having  width 100cm, 2 steel doors  having 96 cm width.  The opposite party has supplied the steel doors with the  specification manufactured by Royal King  stating that Royal King product also have the same quality and durability and is the same product of i-Leaf products.  On 12/7/2018 the complainant  received the product and opposite party issued a bill showing product name as i-Leaf instead of Royal King (Bill No. 0079 dtd.12/7/2018).  At the time of supply of the  product the opposite party collected Rs.58764/- being  the cost of the product.  But after fixing the above said steel doors of  Royal King shown several defects  in its lock and the said doors are now covered with rests and its  painting  diminished.  Due to the low quality  products the doors  are in a damaged condition.  Then the complainant requested  several times to the opposite party to change the steel doors with  that of new i-Leaf doors.  The opposite party  have not taken  any steps to change new doors.  Alleging the above said acts amounts to  deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice  on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the  complainant has filed the instant complaint.

            After filing the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party  received the  notice and vakkalath filed, but not  appeared  before the Commission and not  filed any  version.  So in  this case came to be proceed against the  opposite party as  exparte.

    Eventhough the opposite party has remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  opposite party.  Hence the  complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of  affidavit and  documents.   Accordingly the complainant has  produced his affidavit along with  documents marking them Ext.A1to &A4 .  So the  opposite party remain absent in this case.  At the end the Forum  heard the case on merits.

       Let  us have a clear glance at the  relevant documents  of the  complainant.  Ext.A1 is the  cash bill  No.0079 dtd.12/7/2018 for Rs.58764/- issued by opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the lawyer notice , Ext.A3  is the acknowledgment card and Ext.A4 is the postal receipt. It shows that the  opposite party is liable to  cure the loss sustained  by the complainant .  This act of the opposite party amounts  to  deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice  on the part of the opposite party.  Under the circumstances , we are of the  considered view that the complainant is entitled to get the value of the  product  Rs.58,764/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty four only) , and the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.7,500/- being the   compensation and cost of  litigation.  It will meet the ends of justice .  Hence the complaint is allowed.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund   product value  Rs.58,764/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand seven hundred and sixty four only) to the complainant along with Rs.7500/- as  compensation and cost of  litigation to the complainant. 

     This order to be complied by the opposite party within  30 days from the date of  receipt  of the order,   failing which the   complainant shall be  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Exts:

A1- 12/7/18-  cash bill

A2-17/4/19- lawyer  notice

A3-Acknowledgment card

A4- postal receipt.

Sd/                                                                                     Sd/                                                                     Sd/

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

eva                                                         

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPEINTENDENT