S.N.Agencies V/S M.M.Vijayan - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/07/222

M.M.Vijayan - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.N.Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2008

ORDER

Alappuzha
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ,BAZAR P.O
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/222

M.M.Vijayan						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
S.N.Agencies						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. M.M. Vijayan has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is contended that his wife and son has purchased 31 sq. feet Rubber Mat at the rate of Rs.145/-per sq. feet (Total Rs.4495) from the representative of the opposite party, on 25.9.2007 and the said purchasers have paid Rs.3495/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- from the total amount, as agreed by the representative of the opposite party. The above purchase was conducted in his absence in the house. After that upon enquiry Sri. M.M. Vijayan learnt that the price paid was very high and it comes only Rs.48/- per sq. feet. Aggrieved by the purchase committed by his wife and son, Sri. M.M. Vijayan has filed this complaint before this Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party and they have accepted the same. But not entered appearance, and so they set exparte. 3. Complainant produced one document; Ext.A1 - it is the receipt dt. 25.9.2007 issued in favour of the complainant. The receipt shows the details of the amount and the article sold. On a perusal of the complaint and document given, the evidence it can be seen that the purchase was conducted by the wife and the son of the complainant. They have purchased the article and paid the amount for the same, so it cannot be say that Sri. M.M. Vijayan is the consumer. The purchase was done by another party after satisfying the article and paid the price. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed, since it has no merit. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N.SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the bill dated 25.9.07. Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil // True Copy // By Order To Senior Superintendent Complainant/ Oppo. Party/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-

SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. M.M. Vijayan has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is contended that his wife and son has purchased 31 sq. feet Rubber Mat at the rate of Rs.145/-per sq. feet (Total Rs.4495) from the representative of the opposite party, on 25.9.2007 and the said purchasers have paid Rs.3495/- after deducting a sum of Rs.1000/- from the total amount, as agreed by the representative of the opposite party. The above purchase was conducted in his absence in the house. After that upon enquiry Sri. M.M. Vijayan learnt that the price paid was very high and it comes only Rs.48/- per sq. feet. Aggrieved by the purchase committed by his wife and son, Sri. M.M. Vijayan has filed this complaint before this Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite party and they have accepted the same. But not entered appearance, and so they set exparte. 3. Complainant produced one document; Ext.A1 - it is the receipt dt. 25.9.2007 issued in favour of the complainant. The receipt shows the details of the amount and the article sold. On a perusal of the complaint and document given, the evidence it can be seen that the purchase was conducted by the wife and the son of the complainant. They have purchased the article and paid the amount for the same, so it cannot be say that Sri. M.M. Vijayan is the consumer. The purchase was done by another party after satisfying the article and paid the price. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed, since it has no merit. No order as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of May, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N.SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the bill dated 25.9.07. Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil // True Copy // By Order To Senior Superintendent Complainant/ Oppo. Party/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-

......................JIMMY KORAH
......................K.Anirudhan
......................Smt;Shajitha Beevi