Kerala

Malappuram

OP/05/11

MUHAMMEDALI,S/O. KUNJIMUHAMMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROP. UNIVERSAL ENTERPRICES,NEAR JUMA MASJID - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/05/11

MUHAMMEDALI,S/O. KUNJIMUHAMMED
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PROP. UNIVERSAL ENTERPRICES,NEAR JUMA MASJID
CRIME SERVICE,NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTRE,28/492/3
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 2. K.T. SIDHIQ

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

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant filed affidavit. Ext.A1 and A2 marked. Opposite party No.1 was personally present on 4-10-2007 and 31-10-2007. No version filed by opposite party No.1. Names of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 deleted as per orders in I.A.No.13/08. Complainant alleges that the 14” colour TV purchased for Rs.10,000/- from opposite party No.1 has manufacturing defects. On 31-10-2007 the alleged TV was produced before the Forum. As per instructions of opposite party No.1 two service persons from Calicut Service Centre were also present. When the TV was switched on it did not function properly and the picture was not clear. The service persons rectified the defect stating that it was due to shaking in the alignment. Complainant was asked to report on the next hearing date (29-11-2007) after using the TV . On the next hearing date complainant reported that the TV has again started to show the same trouble. On 29-11-2007 opposite party No.l was absent. We have no hesitation to hold that the TV has manufacturing defect. Ext.A1 is the warranty card. The TV has become defective during the warranty period itself. Complainant has purchased the TV for Rs.10,000/- availing loan from bank. The act of opposite party in selling a substandard item amounts to unfair trade practice. 2. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party No.1 is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On payment complainant shall return the alleged TV to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 being dealer is at liberty to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer. Dated this 30th day of January, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2 Ext.A1 : Warranty card. Ext.A2 : Warranty card and participation form. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER




......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................K.T. SIDHIQ