Kerala

Malappuram

OP/05/7

INDIRA E.P, W/O K.K SUBHRAMANIAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CANAN TECHNOOGIES PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2007

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/05/7

INDIRA E.P, W/O K.K SUBHRAMANIAN
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/S CANAN TECHNOOGIES PVT LTD
K.A MAJEED, HELLO HAI BUISNESS GROUP
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. According to Complainant she paid Rs.250/- as advance to 2nd opposite party for purchase of Cannan Kinetisar Stove. She was assured that the Stove would be delivered within two months and she was also offered Steel utensils worth Rs.500/- as free gift. The balance amount of Rs.2250/- was to be paid at the time of delivery. Opposite parties did not deliver the stove till date. Hence the complaint. 2. Opposite parties set exparte. Opposite party No.1 filed version admitting the receipt of advance. The liability to refund the advance is denied for the reason that there is specific condition in the booking/order form that the advance is non-refundable. Opposite parties are ready to deliver the stove now to the complainant and he has to pay Rs.500/- extra because the cost of the stove has increased presently. 3. Complainant filed affidavit. Exts.A1 and A2 marked. No affidavit filed by opposite parties. Ext.B1 marked. The contention of opposite party No.2 that the advance paid is non-refundable is unacceptable for the reason that it is part of the consideration towards the price of the stove. The condition in Ext.A1 order form that the advance is non-refundable is illegal. Complainant prays for refund of the advance and compensation. She does not want the stove any more We find that the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. 4. In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) with interest @ 10% per annum with effect from 7-2-2004 to the complainant along with costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dated this 13th day of December, 2007. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2 Ext.A1 : Order form dated 7-2-2004 in the name of complainant. Ext.A2 : Advertisement in favour of opposite parties. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 Ext.B1 : Book let. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER