Joseph K J filed a consumer case on 13 Oct 2022 against Kochukudiyil electricals in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/188/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Nov 2022.
DATE OF FILING : 21.12.2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2022
Present :
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER
SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER
CC NO.188/2020
Between
Complainant : Joseph K.J.,
Kunnel House,
Pandippara P.O.
Idukki – 685 509.
And
Opposite Party : Kochukudiyil Electricals,
Kochukudiyil Buidling,
Kattappana – 685 515.
(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)
O R D E R
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complainant had purchased electrical and wiring equipments from the shop of opposite party situated in Kattappana. Complainant alleges that he was supplied with an old model main switch which cannot be used, that KSEB is granting power supply connection only upon installation of new model of MCB Meter. Though opposite party was well aware of this fact, he had deliberately supplied an old model obsolete main switch which cannot be used. Since the area wherein complainant’s house was situated, declared as a containment zone, he was able to approach opposite party seeking replacement of old switch, only after a month of purchase. Opposite party had refused to replace the old meter or to repay its price stating that complainant has belatedly sought for replacement. Complainant prays for return of price of the old switch which comes to Rs.380/-. He also claims Rs.3,000/- towards travel expenses to visit opposite party, seeking replacement. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- as he was unable to get power supply from KSEB and also Rs.1000/- towards litigation cost.
(cont....2)
- 2 -
2. Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version. His contentions are briefly discussed here under :
According to opposite party, complainant had approached him in April 2020, for purchasing electrical articles and wiring components. Complainant had given a list of articles in which the main switch was also mentioned. Though opposite party had shown new models of insulator, RCCB and MCB etc., as those were expensive items, complainant had preferred to purchase old model main switch for his power connection. There is no rule of law which prohibits grant of power supply to residential buildings with old model main switch. Complainant had approached opposite party only after 8 ½ months of purchase. Due to long delay and also owing to the fact that supply of old main switch was as demanded by complainant, opposite party had refused to replace the main switch or to accept its return. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Amounts claimed in the complaint are exorbitant. Complaint is experimental. Same is to be dismissed with compensatory costs.
3. After the filing of written version, case was posted for evidence after affording sufficient opportunity to both sides to take steps. Though repeated postings were given, complainant has not turned up for giving evidence. Bill copy produced by him was marked as Ext.P1. Opposite party had filed proof affidavit. Same was read in evidence. As complainant was not present on the date when opposite party had tendered evidence, opposite party was not cross examined. After closure of evidence, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for opposite party. Now the points which arise for consideration are :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for ?
3) Final order and costs ?
4. Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :
Though complainant claims that opposite party had deliberately supplied an old model main switch to him which cannot be used, no evidence was tendered by him in this regard. On the other hand, opposite party has given evidence to the effect that supply of electrical materials and components was as ordered by complainant. There was no supply of any inferior or defective goods to complainant. This evidence of opposite party remains unchallenged. Therefore, we find that complainant had not succeeded in proving that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party or that goods supplied by him were deffective. Complainant is therefore not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Point Nos. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
5. Point No.3 :
In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.
Pronounced by this Commission on this the 13th day of October, 2022
Sd/-
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Depositions :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - bill copy for the purchase of main switch.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.