Kerala

Kozhikode

CC/09/47

JIKKY JOHN - Complainant(s)

Versus

S MUTHU ADAIKKALAVAN - Opp.Party(s)

28 Jan 2010

ORDER


KOZHIKODECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 47
1. JIKKY JOHNMANAGING DIRECTOR,SUPER COMPUTERS,DREAM LAND BUILDING,KALUR ROAD,CALICUT-7KOZHIKODEKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. S MUTHU ADAIKKALAVANPROPRIETOR,SRI AMBAL MARKETTING,DEALER IN PAPER AND BOARDS,OFFICE AND COMPUTER,STATIONERY,36/561A,ST.FRANCIS CHURCH CROSS ROAD,COCHIN,682017ERNAKULAMKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 28 Jan 2010
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 L. Jyothikumar, Member:
 
            Complainant firm was running business in lamination work. The opposite party had supplied plastic lamination machine ( Sharnic Chamber Machine) for an amount of Rs.41,600/- with raw materials for Rs.34,874/-. Soon after the installation, the function of the machine was stopped. The complainant had approached the opposite party several times and also sent notice by requesting to take back the plastic lamination machine along with the raw materials and to refund the cost of the same. The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
 
            Notice sent to the opposite party was returned with an endorsement left. Substitute service against opposite party was taken. Paper publication was produced. Opposite party did not appear before the Forum. Hence the opposite party was called absent and set exparte. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked. From the evidence and exhibits the case of the complainant is proved. Even though the complainant had informed the deficiency in service of the opposite party and approached several times to get back the new machine or cost of the machine, opposite party did not take any steps to redress the grievances of the complainant. Hence the Forum is of the opinion that opposite party was deficient in their service and the complainant is entitled to get the cost of the plastic lamination machine and raw material which comes to a total of Rs.75,974/-.
 
            In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.75,974/- and a cost of Rs.3500/- to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
 
Pronounced in the open court this the 28th day of January 2010.
 
 
            Sd/- PRESIDENT                    Sd/- MEMBER            Sd/- MEMBER
 
APPENDIX
 
Documents exhibited for the complainant.
A1. Cash Bill dt. 24-3-08.
A2. Photocopy of Cash bill dt. 19-4-08.
A3. Photocopy of cash bill dt. 6-8-08.
A4. Copy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 16-10-08.
 
Documents exhibited for the opposite party.
            Nil.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Jikky John (Complainant)
 
Witness examined for the opposite party.
                        None
 
                                                                        Sd/- President
 
                        // True copy //
 
                        (Forwarded/By order)
 
                SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

, , ,