BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.21/2009

Between

Complainant : Sebastian M Mathew,

Malayil House,

Moolamattom P.O.,

Pin: 685 589

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Royal the complete Family Shop,

Munjanattu Royal Towers,

Near Private bus stand,

Thodupuzha P.O.

Pin: 685 584

(By Adv: Prince J Pananal)

2. M/s Mittal Electronics,

D.18-5 MA,

Industrial Estate,

GT Karnel Road,

Delhi-110033.

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

The complainant on 19/09/2008 purchased a mixi for a consideration of Rs.3,717/- from the shop of the opposite party. It was having one year guarantee. But the bill was not given by the opposite party and if any defect in the working occurred the same would be replaced by a new mixi. On 31/10/2008 the mixi became function less. On 17/11/2008 the mixi was repaired and returned by the opposite party. Again on 5/1/2009 the same defect was occurred and the mixi was taken to the opposite party, but it is not returned after repair. On 8/01/2009 the complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party. But he did not care either to replace the mixi or to return the amount. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has been filed for a direction to the opposite party to deliver a new mixi or to refund the price paid by the complainant, and also to pay compensation.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the mixi in question was purchased by the complainant from his shop on 19/09/2008 for Rs.3,200/-. The bill also issued to the complainant. The mixi was entrusted for repair.  The same was repaired and it was returned to the complainant on 17/11/2008. Thereafter, complainant again approached the opposite party on 5/01/2009 along with the mixi and raised some complaints. It was repaired and the matter was informed to the complainant with a request to take back the mixi. But the complainant never cared to take back the mixi from the shop of the opposite party. The complainant is insisting for replacement with new one, for which he is not entitled to. The complainant has not approached the opposite party. There was absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the party of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence adduced by both parties.
 

5. The POINT:- It is admitted that the mixi was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party and it was covered by one year guarantee. The only dispute is whether the bill was issued or whether it was noted in Ext.P2 guarantee card. The complainant purchased the mixi on the payment of Rs.3,717/- on 19/09/2008. The complainant did not produce the bill. But the opposite party produced the bill book before the Forum. Ext.R1 is the bill book and Ext.R1(a) is the carbon copy of bill. In Ext.R1(a) bill, the amount of the mixi was Rs.3,200/- dated 19/09/2008. Ext.P1 is the job card of the mixi on 5/01/2009. The fact that the mixi in question was entrusted to the opposite party by the complainant on 31/10/2008 is admitted. According to the opposite party he had sent the mixi for repair to the manufacturer and repaired, it was returned to the complainant on 17/11/2008. Again the same complaint showed on 5/01/2009. So the complainant again approached the opposite party along with the mixi. The opposite party had sent the mixi for repair and offered back to the complainant. But the complainant refused to accept the same, demanding replacement with a new mixi. The complainant has not produced any bill or documents to prove the amount. Ext.R1(a) document, the bill amount was Rs.3,200/-. So the complaint has been filed alleging false amount. The complainant has every right to get the mixi in question replaced by a new one of the same type or to get back the price paid by him. But the opposite party was not ready to supply a new mixi. So the allegation in the complaint to constitute deficiency in service and the version given are different. The opposite party is ready to refund the amount of Rs.3,200/-. Therefore, having regard to all the matters under consideration, we feel that the grievance of the complaint will be redeemed, if the opposite party is directed to refund the price of the mixi Rs.3,200/-. The complainant is also entitled to get the cost of this petition which we would limit to Rs.500/-.
 

In the result, the petition is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the price of the mixer-grinder(mixi) Rs.3,200/- along with Rs.500/- as costs to the complainant within 30 days and to take back the mixi in question, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May,2009.
 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Job card of the mixi on 05/01/2009

Ext.P2 - Copy of guarantee card

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Carbon copy of the Bill dated 19/09/2008