Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/213

Chakrapani.K,Eanam,Thekkevila.P.O. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Santhosh,Setron Power Systems, Videotron - Opp.Party(s)

S.Suresh Kumar

22 Feb 2008

ORDER


KOLLAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/213

Chakrapani.K,Eanam,Thekkevila.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Santhosh,Setron Power Systems, Videotron
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY 2. R.VIJAYAKUMAR 3. RAVI SUSHA

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER This complaint is filed by the complainant to get replace the defaulted battery with a new one and other reliefs. In the averments can be briefly surrarised as follows: The complainant purchased setron 300 watts Digital Inverter with Parasonic battery from the opp.party for an amount of Rs.6250/- on 10.6.2005. At the time of purchase the opposite party made to believe the complainant that there will be sufficient service and offered 2 years guarantee for inverter and battery. But within the guarantee period the system became defective and the matter was immediately intimated to the opp.party by the complainant. But he turned a deaf ear towards it. Subsequently complainant sent an Advocate notice on 21.5.2007. The opp.party received the notice on 24.5.2007 and sent a reply notice with false allegations. Thus the complainant filed this case before this Hon’ble Forum to redress his grievances. But the opp.party did not appear before this Forum and declared as exparte. The complainant filed affidavit and 5 documents were produced by the complainant and marked as Ext.P1 to P5. The point that would arise for consideration are: [I] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. [ii] Reliefs and costs. Point [I] & [ii] As the opp.party did not adduce any evidence, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced from the complainant’s side. The complainant could prove his case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and the exhibits mared. The complainant was heard. On perusal of the exhibits P1 to P5 we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to replace the default battery with a new one. The opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost of the proceeding to the complainant.. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : ADV. RAVI SUSHA : R. VIJAYAKUMAR : I n d e x List documents for the complainant P1. – bill for Rs.6250/- P2. – Advocate notice P3. – Postal receipt P4. – Acknowledgement card P5. – Reply notice.




......................K.VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY
......................R.VIJAYAKUMAR
......................RAVI SUSHA