CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                                Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No 287/11

 

Wednesday the 29^th day of February, 2012

 

Petitioner                                               : Abel,

                                                                 Popson Estate,

                                                                 Lines Room No.76,

                                                                 Pambanar PO

                                                                 Peerumed, Idukki Dist.

                                                                 (Adv. Tomy K.James)

           

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                      : Joby Joseph,

                                                                Green Farmers Centre,

                                                                Kannanthanam Building,

                                                                Mundakkayam PO, Kottayam Dist.             

 

 

 

            The case of the complainant presented on 17/11/11 is as follows. He had purchased one motor saw (stithl 460) from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.57,200/- for cutting the trees. At the time of purchase the motor saw the opposite party provided 6 months warranty and explain the details of operating the saw. But the motor saw was not working from the initial stage itself. Then on 1-7-2010 the complaint contacted the opposite party alleging the defects of the machine. The opposite party advises me to use some spare parts worth Rs.5990/- for smooth functioning of the machine. There after also the machine started complaints. Then the opposite party advised the complainant’s to use some more parts worth Rs.20770/-. The complainant spent above said amounts for using the spare parts for functioning the machine. But the machine was not functioning properly. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant had sustained heavy loss and sufferings. Hence this complaint.

            The notice was issued to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not accept the notice from this forum. Hence the opposite party set exparty.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and 3 documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A3.

            Heard complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not repair / replace the defective machine. According to him the machine became defective within one month of the purchase. Moreover during the period of warranty the opposite party has received charges from the complainant. The case of the complainant stands un-challenged by the opposite party. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. 1) We direct the opposite party to replace the defective machine with a brand new defect free one as the same capacity and same price.2) We direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 5990/- and Rs.20,770/- as per Ext.A2 and A3 to the complainant and pay Rs.1500/- as cost of these proceedings.

The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till the realisation.

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

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

Documents produced by complainant.

Ext.A1-is the copy of bill dtd 9-6-10

Ext.A2-is the copy of bill dtd 1-7-10

Ext.A3-is the copy of bill dtd 12-7-10.

By Order,