Kerala

Trissur

CC/07/769

Poulose.P.O. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprieter - Opp.Party(s)

C.Mohanachandran

31 Jul 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/769

Poulose.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Proprieter
The Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Poulose.P.O.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Proprieter 2. The Managing Director

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. C.Mohanachandran

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 Padmini Sudheesh, President The facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a LG-7 kg Washing Machine model No.WD 1050 F for Rs.26,250/- on 16/7/2003. The Tub of the washing machine was broken and repaired by the LG authorized service centre Digital Electronics Thrissur through the 1st respondent on 14/11/2005 and paid Rs.1530/- with the guaranty for another one year. Again, the same complaint has happened to the washing machine. Then the same service centre has taken the machine for repair and demanded Rs.2000/-towards the repair charge. The petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount towards repair charge. The washing machine is still in the custody of respondent’s service centre. The petitioner caused mental agony and economic loss due to the above mentioned acts of the respondents. This is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the respondents. Hence this complaint. 2. Respondents are set exparte. 3. To prove the case the petitioner has filed affidavit and 4 documents. The documents are marked as Exts. P1 to P4. 4. According to the petitioner he is entitled to replacement of the LG 7 kg. Washing Machine model No.WD 1050 F with a anew one of the same brand or to refund the value of the washing machine with interest. He also claims for compensation. 5.There is no counter evidence. 6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to replace the LG 7kg Washing Machine Model No.WD 1050 F or pay the value of the machine with 12% interest from 16/7/12003 and 6% interest from today. Respondents are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within a month. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 31st day of July 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.