Kerala

Trissur

CC/09/505

Shaju.C.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor,Hi- Tech Systems & Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.A.D.Benny

04 Jan 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/505

Shaju.C.P
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Proprietor,Hi- Tech Systems & Solutions
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Shaju.C.P

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Proprietor,Hi- Tech Systems & Solutions

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.A.D.Benny

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.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The case of the complainant is as follows: On 1.2.2005 the complainant made a comprehensive copier contract between the respondent as per agreement No.HTSS/CCC/45-001. The model of the copier is No.SF 1118. As per the agreement the defects of the copier is to be repaired by the respondent. When the copier got complaints in 2007 June the respondent was not ready to repair. Only after receiving the lawyer notice, the respondent came and taken away the machine for repair. When the machine was received after repair it seems to be different and on examination it was noted that the machine was changed and it has the serial No.1550804Y. The serial number of earlier machine was 4500149X. Thus the respondent has cheated the complainant. So the complainant sent a lawyer notice on 27.11.2007. The new exchanged machine is also not working. The respondent committed unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit and the documents produced by him are marked as Exts. P1 to P3.
            4. According to the complainant, there was a comprehensive copier contract on 1.2.2005 between the complainant and respondent.   The defects incurred by the machine shall be cured by the respondent as per the said agreement. Thereafter at the end of June 2007, the said machine became defective and even if it was reported the respondent never taken any action for the repair. Only after sending a lawyer notice on 21.10.2007, the respondent was agreed to repair the machine and they taken away the said machine for repair. But when it was returned after repair the machine is seen changed with another similar machine.   When this was reported they did not respond and the exchanged machine having serial no.1550804Y also got damaged and is not working. Another lawyer notice was sent on 27.11.2007 stating the matter but no remedy so far.
 
            5. There is no evidence to the contrary.
 
            6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to return to the complainant the copier machine having serial No.4500149X without any defects and pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month.
 

             Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 4th day of January2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S