Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/82

M.Pushpa Rajan, Pushpa Vilasom, Venchempu.P.O. - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.Omanakuttan Pillai,Proprietor,Karthik enterprise - Opp.Party(s)

04 Aug 2008

ORDER


consumer case
cdrf kollam
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/82

M.Pushpa Rajan, Pushpa Vilasom, Venchempu.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

K.Omanakuttan Pillai,Proprietor,Karthik enterprise
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By R.VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The Complainant has filed the complaint for getting compensation for the damaged Mixer Grinder and compensation and cost. The averments in the Complaint can be briefly summarized as follows : The Complainant has purchased a Bush Mixer Grinder for the price of Rs. 1,590/- from the I opposite party on 29/10/05. Due to the over heat produced by the Motor, the body of machine found damaged with in one month and as informed by the complainant, upper body part was changed by the opposite party and no other repairs were done. On 14/11/06 Motor of the machine damaged. Complainant claimed for replacement of Mixer Grinder with a new one or repair the same perfectly. 1st opposite party denied the claim for new Machine and told that there is no provision for replacement. The 1st opposite party has taken no responsibility to repair the Mixer Grinder. The 1st opposite party evade the Complainant with lame excuses. Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension and economic loss. Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting relief. II opposite party remained absent. Hence the set exparte. 1st opposite party filed a version containing interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The II opposite party alone is liable for the default. As the dealer, 1st opposite party has no liability to pay compensation. Complainant filed affidavit. He was examined as Pw1. Exhibits P1 to P3 marked. After filing version 1st opposite party also remained absent and hence set exparte. As the opposite parties remained absent and failed to adduce any evidence, we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. The complainant could, clearly prove his case through the complaint, affidavit and exhibits. On perusal of the exhibits, we are of the view that these is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result the complaint is allowed. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 19th day of JUNE, 2008.




......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member