1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) The complainant Sri. M. Goppalakrishnan Nair has filed the petition before this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The case of the complainant is as follows:- The complainant has installed an Air Conditioner in his house at Chandanakkavu and the 2nd opposite party, the Service Engineer of the 1st opposite party, approached the complainant and represented to him that they will undertake the proper functioning of the Air Conditioner and promised the complainant that free service for 4 times in an year and also attend to routine check up regarding the proper functioning of the system of the Air Conditioner, and collected a sum if Rs.1572/- by way of cheque on 3.5.2006 vide vat invoice No.226/dt.3.5.06. The complainant had paid the money believing the representation of the opposite party. But, after that the opposite parties had not cared to attend or do the free service or any inspection to the said system even though the opposite parties are bound to do so, and one year has elapsed since the money was received by the opposite party. Since there was no positive response on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint seeking relief, alleging deficiency of service. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and they have accepted the notice. But not entered appearance. Since there was no appearance, the opposite parties set exparte on 21.2.2008. 3. Complainant have filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents - Exts.A1 and A2 were marked. 4. Considering the contentions of the of the complainant the Forum has raised the issue whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 5. The 2nd opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.1572/- from the complainant on 3.5.2006 after giving assurance that they will rectify the defects, if any, of the Air Conditioner and do the free service or any inspection to the system. In order to show the remittance of the above said amount to the representative of the 1st opposite party, the complainant has produced the invoice dt. 3.5.06. It was in the letter pad of M/s.Essar Combines, 38/751, M.O. Ward, Near Medical College Junction, Alappuzha. Ext.A1 the receipt shows that the amount was paid by the complainant for a sum of Rs.1572/- by way of cheque No.327591. The invoice was signed by the Service Engineer, together with the customer, the complainant. The opposite party has collected the amount by encashment of the said cheque. Ext.A2 is the receipt showing the issuance of the Lawyers notice to the opposite party. The opposite parties have not sent any reply to the Lawyers notice. Considering the contentions of the complainant and upon the perusal of the documents given in evidence and after a detailed hearing we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed, since there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to return to the complainant the said amount of Rs.1572/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred and seventy two only) together with interest at the rate of 12%, compensation of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) together with the cost of Rs.1500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only). We further direct the opposite parties to pay the said amounts to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed Pronounced in open Forum on this the 16th day of April, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- Ext.A1 - Vat invoice for Rs.1572/- Ext.A2 - Postal Receipt Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
