Kerala

StateCommission

893/2003

Biju Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S.Ramani - Opp.Party(s)

S.Unnikrishnan

30 Jul 2009

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 893/2003

Biju Krishnan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

S.S.Ramani
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN 3. SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




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.

 

 
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                    VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 
           APPEAL:893/2003
 
                             JUDGMENT DATED.30..7..2009
 
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                   : PRESIDENT
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER
 
SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                 : MEMBER
 
Biju Krishnan,
Proprietor, Krishna Traders,                                   : APPELLANT
Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
 
(By Adv: Sri.Avanakuzhi.P.C.Vijayakumar)
 
                   V.
S.S.Ramani,
D/o Shyamala, Thekkumkara Veedu,                      : RESPONDENT
Meenankal.P.O, Aryanadu, Nedumangadu.
 
(By Adv: Sri.Devy Cheriyan)
 
                                      JUDGMENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
 
The appellant is the opposite party in OP:330/01 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to refund Rs.7871/- with future interest at 14.5% and Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.
 
2. The case of the complainant is that she purchased an embroidery sewing machine from the opposite party with financial assistance from Kerala State Development Corporation for Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes Ltd. The machine supplied is ‘Singer Fashion Maker’ and not the item mentioned in the bill. The opposite party refused to take back the machine although the same was taken to the opposite party immediately after delivery.
3. According to the opposite party the machine was actually selected by the complainant after visiting the shop. It is also contended that the complaint is filed after considerable long time.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of Ext.P1 to P6, D1 and D2.
5. The Forum after considering the evidence produced found that the machine supplied is not the one mentioned in the bill and hence directed to refund the amount along with compensation and costs. We find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum as can be seen from the documents produced and evidence adduced. All the same we find that on return of the purchased price the appellant is entitled to get back the machine. Hence the order of the Forum is modified to the effect that amounts are to be paid on receiving back the machine. The rest of the order is confirmed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
 
 
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
 
 
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER
 
 
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
 
 
VL.



......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA