The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant visited visited the “Travancore Fest” on 24-12-2009 and booked an induction cooker along with six steel vessels and pressure cooker by remitting an advance of Rs.200/-. As per the order from, the promised delivery date of the said items was 02/01/2010. But the booked induction cooker was not delivered. The complainant contacted the opposite party over phone several times but all those attempts were in vain. So the complainant contacted “Malayala Manorema”. After one day one Mr. Manikandan telephoned and informed the complainant that the booked item will be delivered next day. On 08/01/2010, as the complainant and his wife had to go to their workplace, entrusted the order form and balance amount to their children. On the same day somebody came with the machine and received the balance amount without issuing the receipt for the said amount. In the evening the complainant understood that he received another company’s induction cooker which was devoid of the offered pressure cooker and steel vessels. The complainant approached the opposite party and they agreed to replace the Max India Induction Cooker with their induction cooker. But till this date the complainant has not received the booked induction cooker or the lost money. Hence he filed this complaint claiming the lost money, compensation for the mental agony and time loss and litigation cost.

            The opposite party entered appearance but failed to file version even after several postings.   So the opposite party was set expartee.

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

ii)                   Reliefs and cost?

Evidence consists of deposition of the complainant and ext.A1.

            Heard the complainant and perused the documents. The complainant produced the copy of receipt dtd 24/12/09 issued by the opposite party and it is marked as ext.A1. On scanning ext.A1, it is understood that the complainant had paid an advance amount of Rs.200/-. As per ext.A1 the balance amount to be paid is Rs.3,750/- and the promised date of delivery is 02-01-2010. The complainant deposed that the opposite party failed to deliver the booked item on 02-01-2010. The complainant further deposed that the opposite party neither gave the booked item nor compensated his loss. He next deposed that after complaining to ‘Malayala Manorema’ he received another induction cooker manufactured by a company named stone. The complainant alleged that he did not receive the bill for the supplied item and the offered steel vessels and pressure cooker. As the opposite party chose not to contest the allegations levelled against them remain unchallenged.

            In our view the complainant might have booked the induction cooker of the opposite party believing in the assurances and offers of the opposite party. As the opposite party received an advance booking amount of Rs.200/-, they have a bounden duty to supply the booked product on the promised date of delivery itself. If they were not in a position to deliver it on the said date, they should have at least informed the complainant about that. But in this instant case nothing is seen done by the opposite party. In our view receiving money and not giving the offered product and services is a clear case of deceptive practice. Here as the opposite party failed to supply the booked item and the offers on the promised date, the complainant was forced to inform Malayala Manorema and received another product which he does not want. The complainant submitted that the received induction cooker is kept as such without using it. In our opinion what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, monetary loss and time loss to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

 

            The opposite party will pay Rs. 3950/- which is the actual monetary loss suffered by the complainant due to the alleged booking along with a compensation of Rs. 1000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. At the time of payment of the awarded sums the opposite party can take back the induction cooker and offers supplied to the complainant by the “Stone Company”.

 

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sum will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realisation.

 

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

 

 

Ext.A1-Copy of bill dtd 24-12-09

 

Nil

 

By Order,