IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 15/2021 (filed on 20-01-2021)
Petitioner : C.V. Rajeev,
Cheriyil House,
Kidangara P.O., Alappuzha – 686102.
Vs.
Opposite party : M/s The Shenoy Company,
P.B.No.101,
K.K. Road, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section -35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant is case is as follows:
The complainant had taken quotations for pumping out water from the paddy fields. As the belt of the motor was not working, complainant purchased a new belt for the motor from the opposite party on 23.10.2020 for an amount of Rs.6451/-. Within one month of purchase, the belt got distengrated. This caused severe inconvenience and complainant could not pump out water from the paddy fields for six days. When the matter was informed to the opposite party, they were not willing to replace the belt or to give a new belt with discount. Complainant was forced to take a belt on rent for five days. In order to avoid difficulties to the farmers complainant purchased a new belt on 27.11.2020 from the opposite party. The opposite party had given an old belt purposefully by promising it to be a new belt. The complainant had to spend Rs.2000/- being the rent for the belt for five days. Complainant suffered much mental agony and financial loss due to the act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party failed to file their version or to appear before the Commission to defend their case. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
The complainant failed to attend the court and to adduce evidence after filing of the case. The bill filed along with the complaint was marked as Exhibit A1.
On the basis of the complaint, and available evidence, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
- If so what are the relief and costs.
Ongoing through the complaint and available evidence, it is clear that the complainant had purchased a belt from the opposite party on 23.10.2020 for a consideration of Rs.6451/-. Exhibits A1 is the bill issued by the opposite party for the purchase of the belt. Even though the complainant alleges that the belt got damaged within one month of purchase, no evidence is adduced to substantiate the allegation. No evidence is adduced to show that complainant took a belt on rent for five days by paying Rs.2000/-.
On the basis of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Point No.1 is found not in favour of the complainant. The complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25th day of April, 2022.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- The bill issued by the opposite party for the purchase of the belt
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
