Kerala

Kasaragod

C.C.100/2006

Maichael - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jun 2008

ORDER


.
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD
consumer case(CC) No. C.C.100/2006

Maichael
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

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


BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq 2. P.P.Shymaladevi 3. P.Ramadevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Maichael

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Proprietor

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

D.o.F: 31/8/06 D.o.D: 19/6/08 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD CC.NO.100/06 Dated this, the 19th day of June 2008 PRESENT: SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ :PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER Maichael.A.J, S/o Joseph, Areekkal House, Kammadam,Mandapam.Po, : Complainant Beemanadi,Kasaragod.Dt. Proprietor, National Radio Electronics Company, : Opposite party Kottacherry, Kanhangad,Kasaragod. ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ; PRESIDENT Complainant aggrieved by the non-replacement of his defective T.V.remote control of his Sony T.V within the warranty period, filed this complaint against opposite party, the dealer of T.V claiming Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardships and Rs.2000/- as cost. 2. Eventhough notice sent to opposite party by registered post was served on him he failed to appear before the Forum. Hence opposite party was set exparte. Complainant examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked .Claim proved. 3. According to complainant he purchased Sony T.V with remote control on 12/4/06 having one year warranty. But remote control became out of order within the warranty period. On enquiry made over phone opposite party directed him to bring the T.V remote control for replacement. Thereafter, it was returned to the complainant stating that it is tampered with. Complainant testified that he has not opened the T.V. remote control. We accept the version of the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1500/- towards the repair of the T.V.remote control supplied by them to the complainant with a cost of Rs.1000/-. Time for compliance of this order is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which on application by the complainant proceedings U/S 25&27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 will be initiated. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts; A1-statement A2-cash receipt of Rs.11500/- A3-Service warranty PW1-Maichael A.J-complainant. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ Senior Superintendent




......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi