Kerala

Idukki

CC/122/2019

Binoy - Complainant(s)

Versus

joison Joseph - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 20.6.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.122/2019

Between

Complainant : Binoy Xavier,

Mannikunnel House,

Panickankudi P.O.,

Konnathadi, Idukki.

And

Opposite Party : The Proprietor,

Joyson Joseph,

Thottuvelil Agro Tech,

Thottuvelil Line,

Opposite Matha Theatre,

Adimali, Idukki – 685 561.

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Case of the complainant is that:

 

On 20.6.2019, the complainant purchased a gearbox 9 teeth 28 mm YD worth Rs.1200/- for grass cutting machine from opposite party and fixed it in the machine at the same time. But unfortunately at the time of the fixation, the gearbox cracked suddenly. The complainant approached the opposite party's institution with cracked gearbox, but opposite party said that their product is good and there is no proper fixation of the gearbox by the complainant and so the product will not replace by them. After that the complainant purchased one 'case' for old gearbox from opposite party's institution and opposite party received Rs.489/- as the price of the 'case' and Rs.150/- as service charge from the complainant. At the time of purchasing the gearbox, opposite party agreed the guarantee of the product and their responsibility. But opposite party did not take any remedial steps to the defective product. It is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. So opposite party is liable to either replace the cracked box or return the price of the product to the complainant.

 

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

Opposite party appeared before the Forum and they filed objection to the petition. Then the opposite party not appeared for the date of posting of evidence. So the opposite party called absent and set exparte.

 

The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

Complainant adduced evidence by producing documents. Ext.P1(series), the bill of the purchased products is marked. No evidence adduced by the opposite party.

 

The POINT :- The complainant alleges that the gearbox worth Rs.1200/- is purchased from opposite party and original bill issued by the opposite party at the time of purchasing to the complainant. Complainant produced the bill before the Forum. It is clear that the complainant purchased the above said product. Notice served to the opposite party. They appeared before the Forum and filed objection to the complainant. Then the opposite party not appeared for the date of posting of evidence. So the opposite party called absent and set exparte.

 

Hence the petition allowed. The Forum directs the opposite party either to replace the gearbox or to refund the price of the product worth Rs.1200/- to the complainant and also directs the opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2019

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

APPENDIX

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - bill of the purchased products.

On the side of the Opposite Party : Nil. Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT