BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 209/2007 Filed on 04.10.2007

Dated : 15.04.2009

Complainant:

R. Krishnan Nair, Director, Snehatheeram Charitable Society, East Bungalow, Nedumangad.

Opposite party:

The Proprietor, Kaveri Trading Corporation, Kairali Avenue, Kairali Towers, Nedumangad.

This O.P having been heard on 04.03.2009, the Forum on 15.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant purchased cylpaulin for roofing the creche building from the opposite party. But after six months it got damaged and the complainant has faced difficulty to run the creche with damaged roof. Therefore the complainant had roofing the creche with tin sheet. The complainant alleges that at the time of purchasing the cylpaulin the dealer assured the complainant that it will last for more than 8 years. But the cylpaulin got damaged within 6 months. Hence this complaint.

The opposite party in this case the Kaveri Trading Corporation filed version and thereafter they did not appear before this Forum to contest the case.

The complainant in this case filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and cost?

Points (i) & (ii):- The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts. P1 and P2. Ext. P1 is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs. 980/- on 10.02.2007. In this bill Rs. 800/- is the price of the cylpaulin and Ext. P2 is the copy of bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs. 2990/- on 20.07.2006. From this bill we can see that Rs. 2800/- is the price of the cylpaulin.

In this case the opposite party did not contest the case. Complainant has sworn in the affidavit that the opposite party has supplied sub standard cylpaulin. Complainant has not been cross-examined. So the statements in the affidavit stands unchallenged. Hence the procedure under 13(1)(c) is not required. From the evidence adduced by the complainant we have concluded that the cylpaulin purchased by the consumer is low quality and sub standard compared with its price. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) deducting the depreciation amount from the purchase price of Rs. 3600/-. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15^th April 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 209/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Cash Bill dated 20.07.2006 for Rs. 2,990/-.

P2 - Cash Bill dated 10.02.2007 for Rs. 980/-.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT