Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/223

Tojo Kainady - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.K.Scariachan - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Bimal

20 May 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/223
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/02/2010 in Case No. CC 142/09 of District Kozhikode)
1. Tojo Kainady ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. M.K.Scariachan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENTHONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA Member
PRESENT :

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

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL 223/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 20.5.2010

 

 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA               : MEMBER

 

 Tojo Kainady,                                   : APPELLANT

S/o P.J.Abraham, 

Proprietor, Kainady Agro-Tech

Sheraton Complex

Samooham Road Junction

Chalappuram, Kozhikode.

 

(By Adv.Bimal.V.S)

 

              Vs.

 

M.K.Scariachan,                                 : RESPONDENT

Mannanal House,

Opposite Sellere Convent,

Malaparamba,

Calicut.

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

          The appellant is the opposite party/dealer who is under orders to return a defect free bush cutter and compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant in CC.142/09 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.

2.  The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a bush cutter- Sparta 42  on 19.6.2008 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.25000/-.  After the 3rd service the machine  became defective.  The machine was entrusted for the repairs to the opposite party and changed some parts but the machine is still  defective.  The machine was again entrusted with the opposite party for repairs.  It is alleged even after 9 months the opposite party has not return the machine.

          3. Among various other contentions opposite party had contended that machine was sent to the service centre at Cochi on 15.2.09 for getting it repaired.  After repair the matter was intimated to the complainant on 19.3.2009.  The  repair cost  comes to Rs.3230/-.  The complainant has not taken back the machine.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of  PWs 1 and 2 and RW1; Exts. A1 to A3 and B1 and B2.

          5. The Forum has noted  that in Ext.A2 warranty card the warranty was for the period of 24 months.  Admittedly it is during the above period that the machine has became defective.  The Forum has only ordered to give a defect free bush cutter and compensation of Rs.1000/-.  We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum. 

In the result  we find there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine.

Office is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

 

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU  : PRESIDENT

 

 

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA               : MEMBER

 

 

 

ps

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 20 May 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT[HONORABLE SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA]Member