Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/132

Joseph, Kattayath Veedu, Pallikunnu PO , Wayanad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

K C M Trading Corporation, Impex Customer care Centre, Thurakkal Junction , Manjery, Malapuram. - Opp.Party(s)

Adv P M Rajeev

31 Aug 2010

ORDER


Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, WayanadConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad
Complaint Case No. CC/10/132
1. Joseph, Kattayath Veedu, Pallikunnu PO , Wayanad. ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. K C M Trading Corporation, Impex Customer care Centre, Thurakkal Junction , Manjery, Malapuram. ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW ,MemberHONORABLE MR. P Raveendran ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 31 Aug 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-


 


 

The gist of of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant purchased an impex induction cooker, Omega H2 on 19.1.2010 from the sales representative of the agency called Lakshmni agencies. The price of the cooker is Rs.5,600/- which was paid by the Complainant on the same day itself. The cooker is having a warranty of 12 months. But the cooker became defective within 15 days of purchase. There was no address of the agencies in the bill. The Complainant tried to contact the phone numbers given by the sales representative and contacted the customer care centre. They promised to repair the cooker, but have not done so. Hence the Complainant prays for an order directing customer care centre to repair or replace the induction cooker and to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony.

2. The Opposite Party was set exparte.


 

3. Complainant filed proof affidavit, documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A3 on the side of the Complainant.


 

4. The matters to be decided are:-

      1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Party?

      2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?


 

5. Point No.1:- Proof affidavit filed by the Complainant admit that the induction

cooker is repaired by the Opposite Party. It is repaired only after filing of this complaint. So, there is deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Party.


 

6. Point No.2:- The Complainant is entitled to get the cost of the case


 

Hence the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to give Rs.750/- (Rupees Seven hundred and Fifty only) as cost of the case to the Complainant within 30 days of the receipts of this order. The Opposite Party is directed to pay interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of complaint till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st August 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.


 

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:


 

Nil.

 

Exhibits for the Complainant:


 

A1. Copy of Bill. dt:19.1.2010.

A2. Copy of Warranty Card. dt:19.01.2010.

A3. Copy of Operating instruction.

 


 

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:


 

Nil.


[HONORABLE MRS. SAJI MATHEW] Member[HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran] Member