Kerala

Kottayam

07/2007

M.C.Antony - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2008

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. 07/2007

M.C.Antony
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Proprietor,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. K.N Radhakrishnan 3. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

The case of the complainant is as follows:-


 

He had purchased a brand new washing machine from the Ist opposite party for an amoun t of Rs.10,000/- dated 15.4.2006. which was manufactured by the 2nd opposite party while installing the machine. The complainant noticed thick clay on all its sides and between the letters of the word “Datergent dispenser” printed on the detergent dispensorlid. It was quite strange to see list (not mere dust) in a fresh unit. The plastic seal above the operating button was torn. The complainant felt suspecious about the newness of the machine from the Ist day itself. He immediately

-2-

informed to the Ist opposite party and demanded to replace the same with a new one. But the Ist opposite party made some lame excuses. The 2nd opposite party was also convinced about the problem but they also supported the Ist opposite party. From the beginning itself the machine was making an extra ordinary sounds. The technician from 2nd opposite party came to the complainant's residence and noticed the problem of the machine and he promised the complainant that matter should informed and discussed with the Ist opposite party. The complainant did not use the machine for a single time a single time after its purchase by investing Rs.10,000/-. Now the machine is completely in a dead stage and the complainant is compelled to purchase a new one for meeting his day to day affairs. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and it amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.


 

The notice was served with the opposite parties. They did not appear before this forum even after accepting the notice from this Forum. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-party.


 

The complainant filed proof Affidavit and documents. The sworn proof affidavit and documents filed by the complainant is not challenged by the opposite parties. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.


 

 


 


 

 


 


 


 

-3-


 

In the result we allow the complaint as follows: We direct the Ist opposite party to refund the price of the machine ie. Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 15.4.2006 till payment and pay Rs.1000/- as costs of these proceedings. The complainant shall return back the Washing machine to the opposite parties on receipt of the cost of the amount. The Ist opposite party can get the amount from the 2nd opposite party (manufactured). The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.


 


 


 

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-

Sri.Santhosh K




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P