This complaint is filed under section 12 of the consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to return the price paid and compensation.<br /> <br /> The facts of the case in brief are as follow: The complainant purchased a mixi bearing sl.No.040702676 forRs.2400/-. There was one year warranty. But after two months of purchase both of its Jar became useless. Complainant approached the owner, opposite party. But he did not take interest to replace it. The nixie is became useless for him due to the attitude of the owner he suffered much mental pain. He deserves to get back the value of the mixi, compensation and cost.<br /> After issuing notice to opposite party he made appearance and takes time for vakalath and version.But there after he has not turned up and not filed version. Subsequently he was declared exparte. <br /> Here the point to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled for the relief and cost as prayed in the complaint.<br /> The oral testimony of PW1 and documental evidence Ext.A1 forms the evidence in this complaint.<br /> Complainant in his evidence deposed that he has purchased the mixer grinder for Rs.2400/- on 28.4.2006. Ext.A1 narrated carries the date 28.4.2006 and the Sl. No. of the product 040702676 and the seal Keerthy Agencies, Kelakam. Ext.A1 proves that the complainant purchased such product bearing No.040702676 on 28.4.06 from Keerthy Agencies. PW1 complainant deposed that he only used the mixi at about 6 months. Within a week blade and the jar thrown out. In the complaint his averments was that the blade and the jar became useless. But it is stated in the complaint that the blade and two jars of the mixi became useless, if so both blade and two jars has tobe replaced. The opposite party did not take care to replacing it even if the complainant approached him several times.Hence there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The complainant failed to prove the the price of the mixi. He failed top produce the bill. Thus it is not possible to determine the actual price of the mixi. It is also not proved that the nixie as such became useless. Butt the blade and jar only became faulty. That means the blade and jars are replaced, the mixi will be alright. In the complaint he pleaded that the blade and jars became useless where as in his evidence he added the blade and the jars thrown out. What is pleaded is tobe prove. Thus it can be considered that the blade and the jars have become useless. It has to be taken into account that the mixi was used in the full condition for about 6 months. Considering the existing condition it can be seen that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not replacing the blade and the jars and thus he is liable to compensate for the loss and trouble suffered by the purchaser – complainant. Thus we are of the opinion that a sum ofRs.500/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice. Hence this issue is answered partly in favour of the complainant.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the consumer protection Act. No order as to costs.<br /> Sd/- sd/- sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Copy of the warranty issued by OP dt.28.4.06<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1.Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil<br /> /Forwarded by order/<br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,<br /> Kannur.<br />