Kerala

Pathanamthitta

CC/13/145

Biju John - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raju Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jan 2014

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Pathanamthitta
 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/145
 
1. Biju John
Madona Engineering, Konni Thazhom, Payyanamon P O, Pathanamthitta 689692.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Raju Proprietor
R S Marketing, Room No.600/326(3), Kizhakken Muthur, Kuttappuzha Post, Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta. 689103
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Jacob Stephen PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. K.P.Padmasree MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 28th day of January, 2014.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

 

C.C.No.145/2013 & C.C.No.146/2013

C.C.No. 145/2013

Between:

Biju John,

Madona Engineering,     

Konni Thazhan,

Payyanamon.P.O.,

Pathanamthitta – 689 692.                                          …..    Complainant

And:

Raju, Proprietor,

R.S. Marketing,

Room No.600/326(3),

Kizhakken Muthur,

Kuttappuzha Post,

Thiruvalla,

Pathanamthitta – 689 103.                                          …..    Opposite party

 

C.C.No.146/2013

Between:

Viswanathan Nair. P.K,

Raj Bhavan Veedu,

Attachackal.P.O.,Konni,

Pathanamthitta.                                                             …..    Complainant

And:

Manager,

R.S. Marketing,

Room No.600/326(3),

Kizhakk Muthur,

Kuttappuzha Post,

Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta.                                           …..    Opposite party

 

COMMON ORDER

 

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

 

                   Though complainants in both cases are different persons, opposite parties and the matter in issue in both cases are same a common judgment is passed.

 

                   2. The brief facts of both complaints are as follows:  Opposite party is the seller of a painting machine having its brand name Paint Zoom.  Both complainants purchased the said paint zoom machine from the opposite party by paying Rs.7,000/- each.  The complainant in C.C.145/13 purchased it on 08.06.2013 and the complainant in C.C.No.146/13 purchased it on 16.10.2013.  When the complainants used the machine, it became overheated and hence they could not use the machine.  Therefore, the complainants informed the matter to the opposite party.  Accordingly, the machine of the complainant in C.C.No.145/13 was repaired and returned two times.  Then also the said machine became defective.  Thereafter also the complainant intimated the opposite party about the complaint and requested for repairing the machine.  But the opposite party did not cared to yield the request of the complainant.  The complainant in C.C.No.146/13 also had the same experiences from the opposite party.  According to the complainants, the machine supplied by the opposite party is having manufacturing defect and the price of the machine collected by the opposite party is much higher than the normal market value, which is only Rs.3,800/-  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainants.  Hence these complaints for the realization of the price of the machine of Rs.7,000/- and compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite party.

 

                   3. In both cases opposite party is exparte.

 

                   4. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainants, the only point to be considered is whether these complaints can be allowed or not?

 

                   5. The evidence in C.C.No.145/13 consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and the evidence in C.C.No.146/13 consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2.  After closure of evidence, complainants in both cases were heard.

 

                   6. The Point:-  The allegations of the complainants is that the opposite party sold paint zoom machine having manufacturing defect for Rs.7,000/- to the complainants with 6 months warranty.  But the opposite party failed to rectify the defects of the machine or to deliver new machines  in spite of the complainant’s request.  Moreover, opposite party had collected Rs.3,200/- in excess than the actual market price of Rs.3,800/-.  The above said act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to the complainants for the same.

 

                   7. In order to prove the case of the complainant in C.C.No.145/13 the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and he had produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 08.06.2013 for Rs.7,000/- issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant for the sale of the paint zoom machine.  Ext.A2 is a letter dated 22.06.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the courier receipt dated 05.09.2013 issued by Professional Couriers for sending the defective machine for repairs.  Ext.A4 is another letter dated 19.09.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. 

 

                   8. In order to prove the case of the complainant in C.C.No.146/13 the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and he had produced 2 documents which are marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the invoice dated 16.10.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant for selling the paint zoom machine.  Ext.A2 is a quotation dated 07.11.2013 issued by Palackal Agencies, Kumbazha showing the price of the paint zoom machine as Rs.3,800/-.

 

                   9. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is found that the opposite party supplied paint zoom machines for Rs.7,000/- to the complainants.  As per the deposition of the complainants and as per the exhibits, it is further seen that the machines supplied by the opposite party to the complainants are defective and it suffers from manufacturing defects.  It is also seen in Ext.A2 in C.C.No.146/13 that the paint zoom machine is available for Rs.3,800/- in open market.  As per the deposition of the complainants, they have suffered financial loss and mental agony and the said grievances of the complainants are not resolved by the opposite party in spite of the request.  The non-redressal of the grievances of the complainants by the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the excess price collected is an unfair trade practice.  Since the opposite party is exparte, the case of the complainants stands proved as unchallenged.  Therefore, these complaints are allowable.

 

                   10. In the result, the above complaints are allowed, thereby the opposite party in C.C.No.145/13 is directed to pay the price of the machine of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant therein within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the opposite party in C.C.No.146/13 is directed to pay the price of the machine of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant therein within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

                   11. In the event of non-compliance of this order by the opposite party, complainants are allowed to realize respective amounts from the opposite party with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.

                   12. The complainants are also directed to return the defective machine on getting the amounts ordered herein above.

 

                   Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of January, 2014.

                                                                                                        (Sd/-)

                                                                                                Jacob Stephen,            

                                                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)           :      (Sd/-)

Appendix:

C.C.No.145/2013

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1   :  Biju John

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Invoice dated 08.06.2013 for Rs.7,000/- issued by the opposite  

              party in the name of the complainant. 

A2       :  Letter dated 22.06.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of  

              the complainant. 

A3       :  Courier receipt dated 05.09.2013 issued by Professional Couriers  

              for sending the defective machine for repairs. 

A4       :  Letter dated 19.09.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name of  

              the complainant. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

C.C.No.146/13

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1   :  Viswanathan Nair. P.K 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Invoice dated 16.10.2013 issued by the opposite party in the name  

              of the complainant. 

A2       :  Quotation dated 07.11.2013 issued by Palackal Agencies, Kumbazha.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:  Nil.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                              (By Order)

                                                                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent.

 

Copy to:- (1) Biju John, Madona Engineering, Konni Thazhan,

                     Payyanamon.P.O., Pathanamthitta – 689 692.                                                                 

                (2) Viswanathan Nair. P.K, Raj Bhavan Veedu,

                     Attachackal.P.O.,Konni, Pathanamthitta.                 

    (3)  Raju, Proprietor, R.S. Marketing, Room No.600/326(3),

                     Kizhakken Muthur, Kuttappuzha Post, Thiruvalla,

                     Pathanamthitta – 689 103.

               (4) The Stock File.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 
 
[HONORABLE Jacob Stephen]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. K.P.Padmasree]
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.