IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.210/2011 (Filed on 25.10.2011)
Between:
Ajayakumar. A.P.,
Anjali,
V-Kottayam,
Pathanamthitta – 689 656. ….. Complainant
And:
Mulamoottil Eye Hospital,
Stadium Junction,
College Road,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645. ….. Opposite party.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he took his son to the opposite party hospital on 22.08.2011 for testing his son’s eyes. After the testing, opposite party prescribed and given a spectacle and collected ` 900. But after 2 months, it is noticed that the paint in the frame of the spectacle is removed. So the complainant approached the opposite party on 20.10.2011 for redressing his grievances. But the opposite party avoided the complainant by saying that the said spectacle has no warranty as its cost is less than ` 1,000 and they usually give warranty only for the items having cost of ` 1000 or more and the complainant is also asked to pay more money for getting a new spectacle. More over, the opposite party has not given a proper bill showing tax for the said transaction. The above said acts of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable for the same to the complainant. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite party for replacing a good spectacle along with `1,250 as cost and directing the opposite party to issue proper bills in future.
3. In this case, notice was issued to the opposite party who refused to accept the notice and has not appeared before this Forum. Hence opposite party is declared exparte and he remained as such till the disposal of this complaint.
4. On the basis of the allegations of the complainant, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. After closure of evidence, the complainant was heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation against the opposite party is that the spectacle purchased for his son from the opposite party for Rs.900 became damaged within 2 months from the date of purchase due to its low quality. The matter was informed to the opposite party, but they avoided the complainant by saying that they will provide warranty only for the items costs `1,000 and above. According to the complainant, the opposite party has not informed about this at the time of purchasing the spectacle. If the opposite party informed this thing at the time of purchase the complainant would not have caused such a loss. The opposite party also has not issued a proper bill with tax for the said transaction. Because of the above said act of the opposite party, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new spectacle by paying ` 1,500. Due to the above said act of the opposite party, the complainant was put to mental agony and financial loss and the acts of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice and a deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant prays for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and produced 2 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the spectacle prescription dated 20.08.2011 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is the job card dated 20.08.2011 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant showing the details and price of the spectacle purchased by the complainant.
8. On the basis of the materials on records, it is found that the complainant had purchased a spectacle for ` 900 for his son who is aged only 17 years, from the opposite party as per the tests and prescription of the opposite party. According to the complainant, the said spectacle was damaged within 2 months from the date of purchase due to its poor quality and the opposite party has not replaced the same in spite of the complainant’s request and thereby the complainant was put to financial loss and mental agony. We don’t to find any reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant. Therefore, we find that the act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence this complaint is allowable as the complainant’s case also stands proved as unchallenged. However, the complainant had already purchased a new spectacle; the prayers in the complainant are not allowable as such. Though the complainant has not made a prayer for compensation, this Forum is inclined to allow compensation to the complainant in view of the attitude taken by the opposite party in a simple matter like this. With regard to the issue regarding the non-issuance of a bill with tax details, complainant is at liberty to approach the concerned tax authorities in this regard. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed with modifications.
9. In the result, this complaint is allowed as modified, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of ` 1,500 (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) the cost of the new spectacle with cost of Rs.1250 (Rupees One thousand two hundred and fifty only) along with compensation of Rs. 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to follow the whole amount with 12% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Ajayakumar. A.P.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Spectacle prescription dated 20.08.2011 issued by the opposite party
in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Job card dated 20.08.2011 issued by the opposite party in the name
of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Ajayakumar. A.P., Anjali, V-Kottayam,
Pathanamthitta – 689 656.
(2) Mulamoottil Eye Hospital, Stadium Junction, College Road,
Pathanamthitta – 689 645.
(3) The Stock File.
