KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.188/11

JUDGMENT DATED 26/3/2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

 SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             --  MEMBER

1.      P.K.Abdul Latheef,                                                                                   A1 ameen Technics and Agencies

Temple Road, Thrippayar,

Nattika.                                                       --  APPELLANTS

2.      Sakeena Latheef                                               

           A1 ameen Technics and Agencies

Temple Road, Thrippayar,

Nattika.

              (By Adv.A.Ajith)

                   Vs.

K.P.Davis,

Kankirathinkal House,                                         --  RESPONDENT

Venkitangu.P.O,

Thrissur District.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in  CC.918/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-  as compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs and if the amounts are not paid  within one month,   the same will carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of complaint.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a photocopier machine, one computer and connected products from the opposite parties on 22.11.02.  It is alleged that the  products were defective and several complaints were made.  The defective  laminator was taken away by the  respondent for repair and not returned so far.  The stabilizer and UPS were not functioning.  Chatting was not possible.

 3. The opposite parties in the version filed disputed the above case and Has contended that the complaint is filed due to the grudge as the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.22,000/- borrowed by the complainant and the same had to be paid by the complainant.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Exts.P1 to P4, C1 & C2, R1 & R2, & RW1. 

          5. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that it is after about 8 years that the commissioner has inspected the equipment.  It is also stated that the commissioner has not explained the reasons for the defects found.  

          6. We find that the case that the commissioner inspected the computer etc. after 8 years is factually in correct.    Of course, there is delay.  The commissioner has  reported that the complainant is using   the system. The Forum has only awarded Rs.5,000/-  as compensation.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum.  There is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          The office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

  S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR         --  MEMBER