CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 189/2013
Thursday, the 15th day of May, 2014
Petitioner : Joji P. Mathew,
S/o. P.V. Mathew,
Pampoorickal House,
Chirakkadavu P.O.
Kanjirappally.
(Adv. K.S. Asif)
Vs.
Opposite party : 1) Mydeen V.P.
Vellirieppil House,
Thodupuzha East,
Opp. Newman College,
Thodupuzha,
Proprietor,
Smart Chef Adam Star Complex 175,
2nd Block – 2nd Floor,
Thodupuzha – 685564.
O R D E R
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented don 22/07/2013 is as follows;
The opposite party is doing business in portable bio-gas unit and stove. On 06/02/2013, the opposite party approached the petitioner and took order from the petitioner to install a bio-gas unit in the premises of the petitioner’s house at Cchirakkadavu. The opposite party made believe the petitioner that he had installed somany bio-gas unit in and around Kottayam, Idukki and Ernakulam Districts and these units are working very well and is very profitable, as the unit required only kitchen waste and wet waste for its working. The opposite party assured that the bio-gas unit would generate gas for the working of the gas stove for 3 hours daily.
Believing the words of the opposite party, the petitioner ordered a bio-gas unit with stove for Rs.19,500/-. On 07/02/2013, the opposite party installed a portable bio-gas unit in the house premises of the petitioner. The petitioner paid the price of Rs.19,500/- as agreed. Right from the beginning, the plant was not functioning properly. The unit didn’t generate energy. The petitioner called over the opposite party and made his complaint. The opposite party told that it was not a defect, it would take two weeks time to generate energy. But even after two weeks, there was no change. The petitioner tried to conduct the opposite party, but he evaded the petitioner. He did not even attend the phone calls of the petitioner. Now the unit becomes idle. The unit has patent manufacturing defect. It cannot be cured. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. They did not appear either in person or through their counsel even after accepting the notice from this Forum.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and one document, which is marked as Ext. A1.
Heard complainant, The case of the complainant stands un-challenged by the opposite party even after accepting the notice from this Forum. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the sworn proof affidavit of the complainant and document produced by the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that, the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result, the case of the complainant is allowed as follows;
- We direct the opposite party to refund Rs.19,500/- to the complainant and pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order shall be complied with within one month, the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till payment.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Documents of the petitioner
1)Ext.A1 : Invoice No. 180 from Smart Chef dtd. 07/02/2013
By Order
Senior Superintendent
