Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/11/676

M.V GANESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROPRIETOR, M/S MORNING STAR - Opp.Party(s)

TOM JOSEPH

29 Feb 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/676
 
1. M.V GANESH
PROPRIETOR, HOTEL KEDARAM, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PROPRIETOR, M/S MORNING STAR
TAHCHIL TOWERS, OPP. L.F HOSPITAL, ANGAMALY 683 572
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ Member
 HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 03/12/2011

Date of Order : 29/02/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

 

    C.C. No. 676/2011

    Between


 

M.V. Ganesh,

::

Complainant

Proprietor,

Hotel Kedaram,

Muvattupuzha – 6586 661.


 

(By Adv. Tom Joseph,

Court Road,

Muvattupuzha – 686 661)

And


 

Proprietor,

::

Opposite Party

M/s. Morning Star,

Tahchil Towers,

Opp. L.F. Hospital,

Angamaly – 683 572.


 

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.


 

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant’s case are as follows :

The complainant is conducting a hotel. He purchased a Voltas air conditioning Unit for using it in the hotel as a basic amenity. The installation of the A/C unit was not intended for any profit generation. While so, after the expiry of warranty period, the opposite party approached the complainant and made representation to the effect that they are the authorized service centre of M/s Voltas. Believing the representation, the complainant entered into an annual maintenance contract with the opposite party for the period from 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2011 by paying Rs. 20,000/-.Thereafter, the A/C unit went out of order. The matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party. But they failed to rectify the defects and consequently the air conditioner was out of order for 5 months during the last summer season. Finally, the complainant was compelled to approach M/s. Voltas for rectifying the defects. The defects were rectified on payment of repairing charges. Then only did the complainant come to note that the opposite party is not an authorized service centre of M/s. Voltas. The complainant entered into the annual maintenance contract bonafide believing the representation made by the opposite party that they are the authorised service centre of M/s. Voltas. Apparently, the act of the opposite party to make false representation amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 20,000/- paid by him towards consideration for annual maintenance contract along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 26-03-2011 onwards till the date of payments. He is also entitled for Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for the loss of air conditioning facility for five months. This complaint hence.


 

2. Despite service of notice from this Forum, the opposite party opted not to contest the matter for his own reasons. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant and Ext. A1 was marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the complainant.


 

3. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount as per annual maintenance contract with interest?

  2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

4. Point No. i. :- Ext. A1 annual maintenance contract dated 26-03-2011 goes to show that the complainant and the opposite party entered into annual maintenance contract for the air condition system for the period from 01-01-2011 to 31-12-2011 at a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. According to the complainant, in spite of Ext. A1 agreement, the opposite party thoroughly failed to comply with the terms and conditions for reasons unsustained. As a result, the complainant had to approach the manufacturer of the machine to get his grievances redressed. Nothing is on record to controvert the averments of the complainant. Moreover, the absence of the opposite party in this Forum speaks volumes for the deficiency on his part. So, the complainant is entitled to get the amount refunded with 12% p.a. from the opposite party.


 

5. Point No. ii. :- Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely, the order for compensation and costs are not called for.


 

6. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite party shall refund Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12%. p.a. from the date of receipt till realisation.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.


 


 

Senior Superintendent.


 


 

 


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Complainant’s Exhibits :-

Exhibit A1

::

Copy of annual maintenance contract

 

Opposite party’s Exhibits :: Nil

 

Depositions

::

Nil


 

=========


 


 

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA]
Member

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.