BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                      : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU V.R                                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 19/2020 Filed on 17.01.2020

ORDER DATED: 29.01.2021

Complainant:

1. Confederation of Cosumer Vigilance Centre, Sreekovil, Kodunganoor.P.O., Kairali Gardence, Vattiyoorkavu.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013.
2. H.S.Panchapakeshan(Dist. & Sectioncts Judge, Kollam), Krishna, Madhumukku, Anayara.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 029.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

M/s.Eureka Forbes Limited, 32/1787-A5, 4^th Floor, Tutus Tower, N.H.Bypass Road, Padivattom, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 024.

The order delivered on 29/01/2021

ORDER

SRI. P.V. JAYARAJAN,  PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant’s case is that the opposite party through their agent installed a Aqua guard (Crystal Plus Model) for which the complainant has paid Rs.3,450/-.  Apart from that an Annual Maintenance Contract was also entered in to between the opposite parties.  According to the complainant the product supplied by the opposite party had some defect after 4 months from the date of installation.  The matter was reported to the opposite party’s office at Thiruvananthapuram.  In pursuant to that a technician from the opposite party’s establishment came to the house of the complainant and carbon was changed in the product for which he demanded Rs.850/- from the complainant.  Though the complainant informed the technician that there is an Annual Maintenance Contract between the complainant and the opposite party for a period of 2 years and he is not suppose to pay any amount during that period.  The technician was not heeding to the request made by the complainant and insisted for payment of Rs.850/-.  The technician left the residence of the complainant only after collecting Rs.850/- from the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redresal of his grievances and also for getting compensation for the mental sufferings and financial losses sustained by the complainant and his family members. 

Notice issued to the opposite parties were served and the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for their appearance and hence, this commission declared them ex parte on 05/03/2020.

The case was posted to 29/01/2021 for the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the complainant.  On that day the complainant and the opposite party’s counsel filed a joint memo stating that the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party’s were amicably settled out of Court and the complainant made an endorsement on the complaint to the effect that he is not the pressing complaint in view of the settlement.  Under the circumstances, as the complainant is not willing to further proceed with this complaint, this commission dismiss this complaint in view of the joint memo filed by both parties.

In the result the complaint is dismissed as not pressed.  There is no order as to cost.           

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 29^th  day of January, 2021.    

                    Sd/-

                                                          P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

                                                                    Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR          : MEMBER 

       Sd/-

                                                               VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER 

R