DATE OF FILING: 15.03.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No. 66/2011

Between

Complainant : George Kuruvila,

“Consolata”, Kunnam,

Muthalakkodam P.O,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: S.Sathyan & Sijimon.K.Augustine)

And

Opposite Party : Balakrishnan,

President,

Ideal Welfare Society No.I-218/99, Shopping Centre,

Santhanpara P.O, Pin 685 619,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Lissy.M.M)

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

The complainant approached the opposite party to purchase a brand new Hand Knitting machine(Model No.KH 840) manufactured by the company named "Brother". The opposite party agreed to provide the hand knitting machine along with its accessories and 50Kg. cotton yarn. On 15.03.2010 the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- by way of cash cheque drawn on ICICI Bank Limited, Thodupuzha branch towards the said machine with its accessories. The opposite party assured to deliver the items within two weeks. However the opposite party has not supplied the items in time to the complainant. On 14.05.2010 the complainant submitted a petition before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha against the opposite party. After that the opposite party delivered a low quality hand knitting machine worth Rs.5,500/- only and some poor quality yarn to the complainant. So the complainant again submitted a complaint before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha regarding the low quality products, it was on 29.07.2010. Before the S.I of Police, the opposite party had agreed to take back the items supplied by him and to pay the received amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 16.09.2010, but the opposite party had not complied with the demands made in the notice or send any reply to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before the Forum.

2. The opposite party absent, no written version filed made exparte.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant.

5. The POINT :- Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the statement of account of the complainant in ICICI Bank Limited, Thodupuzha. Ext.P2 is a copy of the notice issued by the opposite party, which shows that the opposite party is conducting training programmes to the unemployed women. The complainant filed a petition before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha on 14.05.2010, copy of which is marked as Ext.P3. Another petition was also submitted before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha on 29.07.2010, copy of which is marked as Ext.P4. Ext.P5 is the receipt issued from the Thodupuzha police for acknowledging the complaint. A lawyer notice was also issued by the complainant on 13.09.2010, copy of which is marked as Ext.P6(series) and the AD Card of the lawyer notice is marked as Ext.P7. Inspite of notice from the Forum, the opposite party was absent. No written version filed called exparte. The complainant had produced both oral and documentary evidence. Ext.P1, his bank account statement shows that he had withdrawn Rs.30,000/- on 15.03.2010. The complainant stated in his affidavit also that the amount is paid to the opposite party as price of the machine. Ext.P3 and P4 are copy of the police complaints which reveal about the disputed matter. Ext.P6 is the legal notice sent to the opposite party by the complainant. All these shows the repeated requests of the complainant. But the opposite party has not responded to the efforts of the complainant. So we find gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. Exts.P3 and P4 lawyer notices explained the low quality of the machine, supply of such a product is also a deficiency of service. So the allegation of deficiency in service against the opposite party is acceptable and we think that the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation also.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to take back the disputed Knitting machine and pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within 30 days. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost and Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.  

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2011

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) 

Sd/-

I agree SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - George Kuruvila

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Statement of Account of the complainant in the ICICI Bank Limited, Thodupuzha

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Notice issued by the opposite party regarding the training programmes to the unemployed women

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of petition dated 14.05.2010 filed by the complainant before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of petition dated 29.07.2010 filed by the complainant before the S.I of Police, Thodupuzha

Ext.P5 - Receipt dated 29.07.2010 issued by the Kattappana Police for acknowledging the complaint dated 29.07.2010

Ext.P6(series) - Photocopy of lawyer notice dated 13.09.2010 issued by the complainant and postal receipt

Ext.P7 - AD Card of the lawyer notice

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil