Kerala

Malappuram

CC/08/258

K. GANGADHARAN, S/O. CHERIYA SANKARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SREE NILAMBUR AMMAN AGENCIES - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. P. RAVEENDRANADH

04 May 2009

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
B2 BLOCK, CIVIL STATION, PIN-676 505
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/258

K. GANGADHARAN, S/O. CHERIYA SANKARAN
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

M/S. SREE NILAMBUR AMMAN AGENCIES
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 3. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,


 


 

1. Complainant is aggrieved that the Concrete Mixing machine purchased from opposite party for his livelihood by self employment is of substandard quality.

     

2. Notice issued to opposite party was served. The acknowledgement card returned to this Forum bears the seal of Sree Neelambur Amman Agencies and the signature of the Proprietor of the said concern along with date of receiving the notice which is 04-12-2008. The case was posted for the first appearance of opposite party on 26-12-2008. Though notice was received opposite party opted to remain absent. No version was filed by opposite party and therefore opposite party was set exparte on 26-12-2008.

     

3. Complainant filed affidavit reiterating the pleadings and also swearing that the concrete mixing machine was purchased as means of his livelihood by self employment. It is also affirmed that this is his sole means of income. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by opposite party for Rs.97,500/- towards the sale of the concrete machine to complainant. Ext.A2 is the way bill which proves the supply and delivery of the machine by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice issued through registered post by complainant to opposite party in which complainant has stated in detail his grievance and defects of the machine. In Ext.A3 complainant has specifically stated that opposite party has cheated the complainant by supplying a substandard machine instead of Kirloskar machine. This notice issued to opposite party was returned to complainant as unaccepted. Ext.A4 is the notice which is returned by opposite party as unclaimed. On Ext.A4 the endorsement by postal authorities show that three intimations were given to the addressee; but the addressee has not accepted the letter. The affidavit along with the documents prove the contentions of the complainant. It is also brought out that opposite party is willfully avoiding the attempts of the complainant to redress his grievance. Supply of a defective and substandard machine amounts to unfair trade practice. There is absolutely no contra evidence and complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in his favour. We find that opposite party has committed unfair trade practice. It is submitted that complainant has paid Rs.97,500/- being the cost of the machine and also Rs.5,500/- for transportation. In addition it is stated that opposite party collected Rs.3,000/- as amount to be paid for sales tax at Valayar Check Post. Thus complainant has paid total sum of Rs.1,06,000/- (Rupees One lakh, six thousand only) to opposite party. Complainant is definitely entitled to refund of this amount. In our opinion interest @ 6% per annum from the date of complaint till payment would be sufficient compensation to the complainant.

     

4. In the result we allow the complaint and order that opposite party shall pay tot he complainant Rs.1,06,000/- (Rupees one lakh, six thousand only) along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of complaint till payment together with costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On payment complainant shall return the alleged concrete mixing machine to opposite party.

     

    Dated this 4th day of May, 2009.


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX


 


 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4

Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the bill for Rs.97,500/- dated, 04-8-2008 towards the sale of the concrete machine issued by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Copy of the way bill.

Ext.A3 : True copy of lawyer notice dated, 11-9-2008 issued through registered post by complainant to opposite party

Ext.A4 : Returned registered post cover by opposite party as unclaimed.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN