Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/10

Sabu S/O Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramachandran - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Babichan.V.George

27 Feb 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
Complaint Case No. CC/10/10
1. Sabu S/O ThomasHighrange Industries,Kumily,IdukkiIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. RamachandranShobha engineering Industries,Kannamkulangara,Trissur DistrictTrissurKerala2. ProprietorShobha Engineering Industries,Kannamkulangara,Trissur DistrictTrissurKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Sheela Jacob ,MemberHONORABLE Bindu Soman ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 27 Feb 2010
JUDGEMENT

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.

 

DATE OF FILING : 08.01.2010


 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2010


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

 

C.C No.10/2010

Between

Complainant : Sabu S/o Thomas,

Highrange Industries,

Ist Mile, Kumily P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Babichen.V.George)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Ramachandran,

Sobha Engineering Industries,

Kannamkulangara,

Thrissur – 680 007.

2. The Proprietor,

Sobha Engineering Industries,

Kannamkulangara,

Thrissur – 680 007.

O R D E R

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
 

Complainant is running a tyre retreading unit at Kumily. The unit was started as a matter of self employment for earning his livelihood. The opposite parties are introduced by one of his friends. The petitioner ordered for a new tyre retreading mould and for servicing a 600 x 16 Big Rover Mould. The price and service charge amounted to Rs.11,500/-. Complainant paid Rs.3,000/- as advance. On 11.07.2009, the Ist opposite party received Rs.4,000/- and the balance payable to the opposite party was Rs.4,500/- only. The Ist opposite party agreed to supply the new product and serviced mould before 30.07.2009. But the opposite party never acted upon that. On 5.10.2009 petitioner send a lawyer notice to the Ist opposite party demanding the supply of ordered products. After receiving the notice the Ist opposite party had visited the complainant's shop and he agreed to supply the ordered items before 10.11.2009. But after the promised date opposite party did not supply the ordered items to the complainant. He contacted the opposite party through telephone but have no result. The Ist opposite party was receiving orders, supply goods and services for and on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. So the petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties. Due to the non-supply of promised goods petitioner suffered a lot of hardships. In the complaint, petitioner estimated his loss as Rs.50,000/- and he attributed serious service deficiency upon opposite parties which amounts to Rs.30,000/-. Hence the complaint is filed before the Forum, for obtaining the ordered goods and realise the compensation for deficiency in service.
 

2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties and served on 16.01.2010, but the opposite parties were absent and called exparte.

3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P3.
 

4. The POINT :- Ext.P1 is the order form of the opposite party, which shows that on 3.06.2009 the opposite party had taken order from the complainant and received Rs.7,000/- from the complainant. Ext.P2(series) is a petition filed in the Kumily Police Station. Ext.P3(series) is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant. But Ext.P3 had no reply. Ext.P3 is also indicate the difficulties of petitioner, and the deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Deposition and documentary evidence of the petitioner made us to think, to allow the petition.
 

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to supply a tyre retreading mould as per Ext.P1 order and to return the serviced 600 x 16 Big rover mould. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost and Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February, 2010
 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - C.D.Sabu

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Order Form dated 3.06.2009 issued by the opposite party

Ext.P2(series) - Photocopy of complainant's petition filed before the Kumily Police Station and its reply dated 19.11.2009

Ext.P3(series) - Copy of Lawyer Notice dated 5.10.2009 issued by the advocate of the complainant to the Ist opposite party, Postal AD Card and Postal Receipt

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


[HONORABLE Sheela Jacob] Member[HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Bindu Soman] Member