Power On System, Dwaraka Building,Nilamel Road V/S Sebastian Pandy,Charivu Purayidathil,E.S.M.Colony - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/15

Sebastian Pandy,Charivu Purayidathil,E.S.M.Colony - Complainant(s)

Versus

Power On System, Dwaraka Building,Nilamel Road - Opp.Party(s)

Renjith Thomas

22 Feb 2008

ORDER

KOLLAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/15

Sebastian Pandy,Charivu Purayidathil,E.S.M.Colony						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Power On System, Dwaraka Building,Nilamel Road						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY 2. R.VIJAYAKUMAR 3. RAVI SUSHA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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

By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting the value of Incubetor and battery and for other reliefs. The averments in the complaint is briefly summarized as follows: The complainant purchased an inverter and battery on 1.3.2006 from the 1st opp.party for an amount of Rs.9,200/- At the time of purchase the opp.party made to believe the complainant that there will be sufficient service and offered 1 year guarantee. But within the guarantee period the system became defective and on tontinuous intimation the opp.party had attempted to repair the in verter and battery. But the defect was not cured. Hence there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. The complainant prays for relief. The opp.parties did not appear before the Forum and declared as exparte. The complainant filed affidavit. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and marked Ext.P1 to P6. The points that would arise for consideration are: [I] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties [ii] Reliefs and costs. Points 1 and 2 As the Opp. Party did not adduce any evidence, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced from the complainants side. The complaint could provehis case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and the exhibits marked. The complainant was heard. On perusal of the exhibits P1 to P6, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed. The 1st opp.party is directed to pay Rs.9200/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. The 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceeding to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008.

By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting the value of Incubetor and battery and for other reliefs. The averments in the complaint is briefly summarized as follows: The complainant purchased an inverter and battery on 1.3.2006 from the 1st opp.party for an amount of Rs.9,200/- At the time of purchase the opp.party made to believe the complainant that there will be sufficient service and offered 1 year guarantee. But within the guarantee period the system became defective and on tontinuous intimation the opp.party had attempted to repair the in verter and battery. But the defect was not cured. Hence there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. The complainant prays for relief. The opp.parties did not appear before the Forum and declared as exparte. The complainant filed affidavit. The complainant was examined as PW.1 and marked Ext.P1 to P6. The points that would arise for consideration are: [I] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties [ii] Reliefs and costs. Points 1 and 2 As the Opp. Party did not adduce any evidence, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced from the complainants side. The complaint could provehis case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and the exhibits marked. The complainant was heard. On perusal of the exhibits P1 to P6, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed. The 1st opp.party is directed to pay Rs.9200/- with 9% interest per annum from the date of purchase till the date of payment. The 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceeding to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008.

......................K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY
......................R.VIJAYAKUMAR
......................RAVI SUSHA