Kerala

Kannur

CC/276/2006

E. pavithran.Elakkadan house, PO. Kottali, KNR 16 - Complainant(s)

Versus

National radio Electronics Co. SN Park Road , KNR. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Mar 2008

ORDER


IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
consumer case(CC) No. CC/276/2006

E. pavithran.Elakkadan house, PO. Kottali, KNR 16
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

National radio Electronics Co. SN Park Road , KNR.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. GOPALAN.K 2. JESSY.M.D 3. PREETHAKUMARI.K.P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

Dated this, the 3rd day of March 2008 This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to replace Cello Harmony Casserole 1300 ML and to pay Rs.500/- as compensation. As per the averment in the complaint the complainant purchased a Cello Harmony Casserole 1300ML for a sum of Rs.200/- on 11.4.2006. But it has become useless within few days. He approached the opposite party for replacement of the same. . But the opposite party was reluctant to replace the same. Hence the complaint. Though notice was received by the opposite party , there was no appearance before the Forum. Subsequently he was called absent and set exparte. On The above pleadings the following points were raised:- 1.Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order as prayed in the complaint? 2.Reliefs and cost? The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant as PW1 and document produced by the complainant which is marked as Ext.A1. Points 1 & 2 Complainant in his oral evidence deposed that he had purchased the casserole by paying Rs.200/-. Ext.A1 bill produced by the complainant confirms the payment. The complainant further deposed that he had used the casserole for 3 months. From this it is clear that the complainant had been using the casserole properly for those days. Thus it is sure that the casserole became useless not because of the careless use of the complainant but that of the reason of inferior quality of the material itself . It is certainly not having the expected quality and it can only be considered as unfair trade practice. The opposite party is liable to answer for this unfair trade practice by replacing the same. But we are of the opinion that the loss sustained by the complainant has not been sufficient to allow compensation. But the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of proceedings and pass an order accordingly to pay a sum of Rs.250/- towards the cost. In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to replace a new Casserole of the same price with cost of Rs..250/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under the provisions of the consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Bill Dt.11,4,06 issued by OP. Exhibits for the Opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil / Forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kannur




......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P