CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member. CC.No.41/09 Friday, the day of 30th, October, 2009.
Petitioner. K.P.Shajahan Parackal house Endhayar,Kappilammoodu, Koottickal Grama panchayath. (Adv.Jainamma Thomas) Vs. Opposite party. Cyraj Fenstatic collection & Vanitha Gold covering & Gift house, Mundakayam. (Adv.K.Venugopal Ambady) Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member. The case of the complainant is as follows: He had purchased a D.V.D player for an amount of Rs. 3200/- from the opposite party. At the time of purchase he demanded the purchase bill warranty card etc. The opposite party admits that if any problem has arises in the DVD player the opposite party should rectify the defects. But the DVD player starting some defects when it was working . The defects was pointed out by the complainant and the D.V.D plalyer had entrusted with the opposite party and the opposite party informed that the price amount would be refund immediately. But ther opposite party has not refund the price of the D.V.D player. Then the complainant made a complaint before the Mundakkayam Police Station on 18...12..2008. On the intervention of the police the opposite party had given a new D.V.D player and Rs. 300/- to the complainant. The opposite party had not provided the bill warranty card etc. Hence the complainant has not used the D.V.D player. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. -2- The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or onfacts. He had purchased the D.V.D player from the opposite party with the knowledge that the D.V.D player is a second hand one and has no bill and guarantee card. It is admitted by the complainant himself that he lodged a complaint before the S.I of police, Mundakkayam and there by an amicable settlement had been reached at. Though the opposite party suffered loss, he accepted the settlement agreement and handed over another D.V.D player to the complainant since he is his relative. The complainant received the D.V.D player from the opposite party before the S.I of police, Mundakkayam with the full knowledge that the D.V.D player is a second hand one, and it has no bill and guarantee card. If it had not been in his mind that the D.V.D player is secopnd hand one, he should have sought for the bill and guarantee card. Since the dealings had been done in the presence of a police officer. The allelgation that the complainant had not set the D.V.D player working. Since it has no bill and guarantee card is totally false and baseless. No where in the complaint it is stated that the D.V.D player is not working. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with losts. The complainant filed proof affidavit and one document which are marked as exhibits A1. The opposite party filed proof affidavit. Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidence. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had not issued the bill, warranty card etc. to the complainant’s D.V. D player purchased by him. According to him so many times he demanded the above bill, warranty etc. But the opposite party did not provide the same to the complainant. The opposite party has taken a contention that the D.V.D player which was sold to the complainant was a second hand one and so the same has no bill or warranty card. Accordin g to them the complaint had purchased the D.V.D player with the full knowledge that the same was a second hand one. More over the matter in disputes was already settled before the S.I of police, Mundakkayam and
-3- the opposite party had replace the D.V.D player with a new one. The complainant was received the D.V.D player in the presence of the S.I of police, Mundakkayam. However the submissions made by the counsel for the opposite party that the complainant and the opposite party are relatives and so they replaced the same in the presence of S.I of police, Mundakkayam with full satisfaction. But is the present complaint the complainant has not alleged any defects in the D.V.D player. Hence we have no reasons to believe the case of the complainant. The matter in disputes was already settled between the parties. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that the D.V.D player was defective. The specific contention of the complainant is that the D.V.D player was not open and used due to the non-issuance of bill and warranty card by the opposite party. The stand taken by the complainant was not sustainable. In the result the case of the complaint is dismissed. Both parties will suffer their respective costs. Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/- Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/- Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-
APPENDIX A1 is the copy of complaint made to the police.
By Orders,
Senior Superintendent. Kgr/4 copies.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
