Kerala

Wayanad

CC/55/2012

Mini Jhony. - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.A. Mathew. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2012

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/55/2012
 
1. Mini Jhony.
Puthenpurakkal House,Vimalanagar Post, Mananthavady
Wayanad.
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. K.A. Mathew.
Pachalungel, Proprietor,St Jude Adhoke Indane gas distrubutor, Thonichal Post, Mananthavady.
Wayanad.
Kerala.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. K GHEEVARGHESE PRESIDENT
  SAJI MATHEW Member
 HONORABLE MR. P Raveendran Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-

Brief of the complaint:- The Opposite Party sanctioned Indane Gas connection to the complainant. So the complainant went to the opposite party's office and the complainant demanded to get the gas connection ie the cylinder regulator and other items ie the gas stove, lighter, hose he will buy from outside. But the opposite party insisted the complainant to purchase the all items from him. At last there is no other remedy, she compelled to purchase the gas stove, hose and gas lighter along with gas cylinder. From the first sight itself it is found that this gas stove is not in standard basis. So the complainant demanded the opposite party to set the gas connection with store from there itself for testing the gas stove. At that time the opposite party told that this is a gas godown, so you cannot test gas stove from here. So the complainant took the gas stove along with other items from there. When she reached at her house she set the gas stove with the cylinder and the complainant found that the burner of the gas stove is not in exact position, there is bend to one side. So the complainant took the gas stove to the opposite party's office and demanded to exchange the gas stove. At that time the opposite party behaved in rough manner to the complainant. The opposite party issued a bill noting the rate of the entire things given to the complainant and accepted Rs.5,000/- for the gas connection. Thereafter she enquired the rate of gas stove in the open market and found that the gas stove is selling by reducing Rs.500/- in the MRP. But on verification it is found that MRP noted in the stove is Rs.2,150/-, but the opposite party has obtained Rs.2,805/- towards cost of the gas stove. That acts of the opposite party is deficiency of service. Hence it is prayed that to give direction to the opposite party to exchange the gas stove substituting a new one and direct to give back Rs.1,155/- which is collected in excess towards the price of the stove and also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and direct to give cost of this litigation.


 

2. Notice served on the opposite party, but he has not appeared before the Forum. Any how statutory period of 30 days given to the opposite party to file his version. But he has not appeared before the Forum and filed his version. Hence he is set exparte and proceeded with the case.


 

3. On considering the complaint the following points are to be considered:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.


 

4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case she has filed her chief affidavit Ext.A1 to A3 documents are also produced. In the chief affidavit she stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the bill for Rs.1,250/- issued to the complainant by opposite party for the value of Surya domestic gas connection charge. Ext.A2 is the bill issued on 31.01.2012. According to the complainant the bill is issued by opposite party. But we could not see the name of the institution or signature of the issuer in Ext.A2 document. Any how it is clear that it is issued from gas distributor because the charge noted in the bill are related to the gas connections. Hence we presume that the Ext.A2 bill is issued by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the Surya Stove Craft (cover). In Ext.A3 the MRP is Rs.2,150/- but in Ext.A2 it is seen that Rs.2,805/- is collected towards the two burner LPG stove. Hence we come to the conclusion that accepting more value than MRP and not giving proper bill by opposite party is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.


 

5. Point No.2:- The complainant is entitled to get a new stove instead of defective stove by replacing the old stove. She is also entitled to get the excess amount ie Rs.1,155/- which is collected from her by the opposite party. She is also entitled to get Rs.1,500/- as cost and compensation. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.


 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to substitute the new stove instead of the damaged stove and opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,155/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Five Only) which is collected from complainant by the opposite party. Opposite Party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred Only) towards cost and compensation.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 26th April 2012.

Date of Filing:14.02.2012.

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

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.