IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 162/2019 (filed on 15-10-2019)
Petitioner : Thankappan Nair T.G.
Shruthi House,
Champakkara P.O.
Karukachal, Kottayam,
Pin – 686540.
(Adv. ShyniGopi)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Dr. Anju George,
Christ Rapha Hearing Centre,
Chirathilattu Building
Railway station road,
Near Medical Centre,
Nagampadom, Kottayam.
(Adv. AnandhaKrshnan A. Kartha)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
A brief of the complaint in this case is as follows.
The complainant approached the opposite party for a free medical camp. After examination of the complainant, the opposite party advised him to use a hearing aid having cost of Rs.22,000/-. On 17-12-18, the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- as advance and on 18-12-2018 paid Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party and received the Hearing aid. But there was not much improvement on hearing after the use of this Hearing aid. The opposite party then advised to use a Hearing aid costing Rs.35,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 13-05-2019 in addition to the already paid Rs.15,000/- and then Hearing aid was given to the use of the complainant. But there was no improvement on the Hearing problems. On intimation, the opposite party agreed to return the amount paid by the complainant on return of the instrument. As per this the Hearing aid was returned to the opposite party on 05-07-19. Then on 12-08-19, the opposite party issued a Cheque for Rs.15,000/- to the complainant being the first instalment. But on production to the Bank, the Cheque was returned due to insufficient fund in the account of the opposite party. Thereafter when the complainant contacted the opposite party they have not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. Hence this case.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party appeared before the Commission, they failed to file their version or to adduce evidence to defend their case. The opposite party was set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A7.
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2.
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Hearing aid from the opposite party on payment of Rs.15,000/-. Out of which Rs.5,000/- was paid on 17-12-18 and Rs.10,000/- was paid on 18-12-2018. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party for the advance paid on 17-12-20018. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by the opposite party for the payment of Rs.10,000/- on 18-12-2018. Since there was no much improvement on the Hearing capacity of the complainant on use of the Hearing Aid, the opposite party advised the complainant to use a Hearing aid costing Rs.35,000/-. The new Hearing aid was given to the complainant replacing the old one on payment of further Rs.10,000/- on 13-05-2019. Ext.A3 is the bill for the total payment of Rs.25,000/- issued by the opposite party. Evenafter the use of the Hearing aid, the hearing capacity of the complainant was not improved and the opposite party on intimation promised to refund the cost to the complainant on return of the instrument. As per this the complainant returned the hearing aid to the opposite party on 05-07-2019. Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by the opposite party on receipt of the hearing aid from the complainant on 05-07-19. Ext.A5 is the cheque issued by the opposite party on 12-08-2019 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Ext.A6 is the Cheque return memo and Ext.A7 is the statement of account of the complainant for the period from 01-08-2019 to 30-08-2019. Ext.A7 shows that the Bank had charged the complainant Rs.590/- for the return of the Cheque.
Ext.A1, A2 and A3 shows that the complainant had paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party being the consideration for the Hearing aid. Ext.A4 shows that the Hearing aid was returned to the opposite party. Ext.A6 and A7 shows that the opposite party failed to refund the cost to the complainant even after accepting the Hearing aid from the complainant. This act of the opposite party is deficiency in service from their part. Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant. The complaint is allowed and we pass the following Order.
- The opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant with 6% interest from 05-07-2019.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings to the complainant with cost Rs.1,000/-
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of January, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 –Receipt dtd.17-12-18 for Rs.5,000/- by opposite party to petitioner
A2 -Receipt dtd.18-12-18 for Rs.10,000/- by opposite party to petitioner
A3 – Receipt nil for the total payment of Rs.25000
A4 – Receipt dtd.05-07-19 issued by opposite party
A5 – Cheque dtd.12-08-19 for Rs.15,000/-
A6 – Copy of return memo dtd.21-08-19
A7 –Copy of statement of account in the name of petitioner by Canara Bank,
Karukachal.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
