BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No: 323/2008 Filed on 29/12/2008

Dated: 15..05..2010

Complainant:

K. Abdul Rasheed, "Yaseen" T.C.41/1731, Kadiyapattanam Lane, Kalippankulam, Manacaud – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. R. Rajesh)

Opposite party:

Murali, Sree Lekshmi Traders, 11/159, Harihara Building, Manali Road, Palakkad.

This O.P having been heard on 13..05..2010, the Forum on 15..05..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The case of the complainant is as follows: The Ambassador Deluxe TV stand supplied by Sree Lakshmi Traders, the opposite party, as per the booking made at Trade Fair Stall, Thiruvananthapuram, is of sub-standard quality and not useful. From the very beginning itself, mites have destroyed the TV stand, which has lead to the spreading of dust all over the room. The lower part of the shelves were all pasted with paper. No one could keep Television or such other equipments on it. Though the complainant had sent notice to the opposite party regarding the said complaints and to replace the stands, there was no reply. Complainant contacted the Proprietor many times, but he evaded by saying one reason or the other. Hence this complaint.

2. Opposite party remains ex-parte.

Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P3. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.

The issues that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. Points (i) & (ii): The complainant has pleaded that the opposite party has supplied him with a sub-standard, poor quality TV stand which is of no use now. Complainant has pleaded that he had booked the said TV stand with the opposite party at a Trade Fair Stall at Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext. P1 order form, the address of opposite party is seen as Palakkad and that of the complainant as Thiruvananthapuram. But it is seen that the complainant had sent Ext. P2 notice to the opposite party which has been acknowledged by the opposite party as per Ext. P3. Even after that the opposite party has not sent any reply. Moreover, the opposite party never turned up to appear before the Forum to deny the allegations levelled against them. Furthermore, PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his sworn statement in lieu of chief examination also stands uncontroverted. In the above circumstance, we have no hesitation in accepting the pleadings of the complaint. As per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, complainant shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part arises. Accordingly, we have no difficult to hold that, since the part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. There is no dispute with regard to the sub-standard quality of the TV stand as the opposite party has not challenged the same. The fact that the TV stand became defective from the very beginning itself has been established by the complainant. The records produced by the complainant prove that the defects were brought to the notice of the opposite parties well within time. The failure on the part of the opposite party in not attending to the same proves gross deficiency in service in the manner and nature of performance on the part of the opposite party resulting loss to the complainant. When the opposite party has not disputed before the Forum that the TV stand supplied to the complainant was defective, there is no necessity of following the procedure laid down in Sec. 13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact that the TV stand supplied was defective has been conclusively proved by the complainant. In the above circumstance, the complainant is found entitled for refund of the cost of the TV stand along with a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- from the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party shall refund Rs.2,600/- along with a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% from the date of order. On receipt of the entire amount, the opposite party can take back the TV stand in dispute from the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be 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 Forum, this the 15^th day May, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

C.C.No. 323/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : K. Abdul Rasheed

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of Order Form

P2 : Copy of letter dated 25/10/2007

P3 : Copy of acknowledgement card

III. Opposite party's witness: NIL

4. Opposite party's documents: NIL

PRESIDENT

ad.