Kerala

Malappuram

CC/08/97

JABIR.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHEEM - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/97

JABIR.K
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

RAHEEM
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


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

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant purchased a Land phone of Reliance Company from opposite party for Rs.1,999/-. The warranty period offered was one year. Within five to six days the phone became defective. Complainant approached opposite party with the defective phone who directed him to contact the Reliance Office at Nilambur. When he contacted the Reliance Office at Nilambur they informed him that it was opposite party who has to repair or replace the phone. Complainant thereafter contacted Onida Customer Relations Centre at Malappuram. Through them the phone was entrusted to Adonis Customer relation Centre at Kozhikkode. For almost three months there was no response from this Centre. Later, after repeated enquiries this centre at Kozhikkode, asked the complainant to come directly to the office at Kozhikkode. When complainant went to this Centre they gave him a DOA letter and informed that he would get replacement of the phone from opposite party on handing over the DOA letter. Though complainant handed over the DOA letter to opposite party he refused to replace the phone. Hence this complaint. 2. Notice issued to opposite party was served. Opposite party was absent and set exparte on 12-6-08. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his behalf. 3. Complainant was personally present and was examined as PW1. He has reieterated his grievance in the complaint. Ext.A1 and A2 are the receipts issued by opposite party. The price of the phone as per these documents is Rs.1,999/-. Ext.A3 is the copy of DOA letter issued from Adonis Customer Relation Centre, Kozhikode. Claim of complainant is proved. We find that the act of opposite party in selling a substandard product amounts to unfair trade practice. Opposite party is liable to compensate th complainant. 4. In the result, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,999/- (Rupees One thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Dated this 11th day of July, 2008. Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT Sd/- E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3 Ext.A1 : Receipt for a Reliance Land Phone dated, 18-7-07 issued by Opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 : Receipt for Rs.1,999/- from opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 : Copy of DOA letter issued from Adonis Customer Relation Centre, Kozhikkode. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT Sd/- E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI