KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 434/2009

JUDGMENT DATED : 28.07.2010

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    :        MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                   :     JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                   :         MEMBER

APPELLANT

     M/s. Prestige Smart Kitchen,                              : 

Ground Floor Towers,

V.C.S.B. Road, Mullakkal, Alappuzha

 (Rep. by its Managing Partner,

    Philip Thomas, Varampath House,

    Bhagath Singh Nagar, Nalanchira,

    Thiruvananthapuram.)

                  (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Jaideep G. Nair)

           Vs

RESPONDENT

P.T. Chacko,

Patharasseri Veedu, 

Vyasapuram Junction

Avalookkunnu P.O., Alappuzha.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri.S.Pratheep Kumar Thampi & S.S.Renju Ram)

JUDGMENT

SRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA          :        MEMBER

This appeal prepares from the order passed by the CDRF Alapuzha  in the file of C.C. No. 236/07.  The appellant is the opposite party in the above said O.P. prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the Forum below that the opposite party is directed to release a new set of 10 liter  pressure cooker to the complainant after deducting  the amount of his old set present price of the new set together with compensation amount of Rs. 1500/- for his mental agony, for physical strain and inconvenience and a cost Rs. 500/- for these  proceedings.

2.      The dispute arised between the complainants and the opposite parties in connection with the exchange of an old pressure cooker as per the advertisement of the opposite parties  on 10.11.2007.  The complainant had introduced  this old 10 litre pressure cooker with the opposite party by exchange scheme.  The opposite party after accepting the pressure cooker issued a receipt to the complainant at the time of entrusting the old one assure the complainant that they will supply a new one after 3 months.  But the opposite party did not served  the new one as agreed, before taking legal steps.  The complainant requested to the opposite party on 10.11.2007 for the new pressure cooker.  But the opposite party demanded the sum of Rs. 1,700/-  for the new one.  The complainant requested to reduce the amount of the old pressure cooker at the time of  collecting price of the said  10 litre. But the opposite party denied the request and issued against him and returned with a  statement of “No stock at present”.  Hence the complaint.

3.      The opposite party appeared and filed a detailed version before the Forum below.  He contented that in the month of April, 2007, the complainant visited the show room and enquired the price of 10 litre cooker under the exchange with his old cooker given to them, but declined to buy the cooker.   Since the offer has  over, they requested  the complainant  that the cooker can be billed to him only at the ruling prices  in October  and told the complainant that he is free to take his old cooker. The complainant produced documents effect capable  of the receipt dated 10.11.2006 marked it as Ext. A1.  The opposite party has produced 6 documents and marked it as Ext. B1 to B6.  The Forum below raised all the points arising for consideration and discussed the entire evidence and  heard both sides and reached in a conclusion that there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Forum below allowed the complaint.

This appeal prefers from the above order.  On this stage, this appeal came before this commission for final hearing.  The Counsel for the appellant/ opposite party is present and the complainant/ respondent is absent.  The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of Appeal Memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and against the provisions of law and evidence.   He further submitted that the complainant filed the case before the Forum below as an experimental.  So he prayed for allowing this appeal.  The respondent/complainant is absent.  Even though we perused the judgment and other relevant documents and reached in a conclusion that the Forum below correctly answered all the questions arised in this disputes.  In the absence of the respondent/complainant in this case, can not be treated as he filed  the case as  an experimental.  The Forum below taken the view as per the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act. In other words the complainant is having a limit to adduce more evidence.  He is an ordinary consumer.  He attracted the offer of the appellant under the impression that the appellant/ opposite party is a reliable and reputed trader.  He bonafidly  believed this is a reliable offer

We are seeing there is no reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below.  It is strictly accordance with the provisions of law and evidence.  We uphold the order of the Forum below.

In the result, this appeal is allowed in part.  We this commission set aside the compensation amount of Rs. 1,500/- ordered by the Forum below. The cost of Rs. 500/- ordered the Forum below is also set aside. We this Commission directing the opposite parties                                                                                                                                                                                                              to release a new set of 10 liter pressure cooker  to the complainant after deducting the amount of his old set from the present price of the new set  within  one month after the receipt of this order.  This appeal disposed accordingly.  Both parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  The points of the appeal answered accordingly.

                      M. K. ABDULLA SONA            :           MEMBER

                          VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    :        MEMBER

                        SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN      :JUDICIAL MEMBER