IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday  the 31^st    day of  October, 2017

Filed on 11.05.2017

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)

in

C.C.No.120/2017

between

 Complainant:-                                                                                  Opposite Parties:-

1.   Sri. P.K.Sadiq                                                                                     Sri. Dixon Thomas

S/o P.K. Kayi                                                                                      Word signs

Poonchanattil House                                                                           Fore shore Road

Aroor.P.O,  Cherthala                                                                         Near Fine Arts Hall

                                                                                                           Pallimukku, Eranakulam

2.   Sri. P.K. Abdulkhadar

Poonchanattil House

Aroor.P.O, Cherthala                                                                         

                                                               O R D E R

SRI. ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)

            The complainants are brothers.  They are running a bakery in the name and style “New Best Bakery” for their livelihood.  While so with view to make their shop appear attractive they approached the opposite party for installing an LED Board in front of the shop.  As per the agreement arrived on between them on14th December 2016 the said board was installed, and a total amount of Rs.34,000/- was paid.  On expiry of hardly three weeks, the said board went out of order. When the opposite party was intimated as the said aspect on 10^th January the opposite party personnel arrived on and patched up the board.  However on 25^th January 2017 the board over again turned defective, and this time the opposite party did not make it a point to set the material board right.  The complainant purchased the board on the opposite part’s assurance of two years guarantee and prompt service.  The complainants on 13^th March 2017 caused their lawyer end notice to the opposite party which evoked no sort of response.  The opposite party committed deficiency of service, the complainant’s contend.  On being aggrieved on this the complainants approached this Forum for compensation and relief.

          2. Though the notice was served the opposite party was not keen on appearing before this Forum to challenge the complainant’s case.  With the result, the opposite party was set expartie.

          3.  The 2^nd complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents Ext.A1 were marked.  As have been already observed, the opposite party neither turned up nor did contend the complainant’s case.

          4. Taking into account the complainants contention the issues that come up before us for consideration are?

(a) Whether the complainant purchased the materials cameras from the opposite party?

(b) Whether the gadgets so purchased were unusable?

© Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

          5.  Bearing in mind the complainant’s contentions we carefully examined the materials available on record before us.  The complainant’s case is that the complainant caused the opposite party fix a LED board in front of their bakery shop to augment its attraction.  The complainant paid Rs. 34,000/- for the same. Barely weeks after  the installation of the said board, the same went out of order, and the opposite party was not prepared to rectify the same.  On a careful perusal of the materials particularly Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 available on record before us,  we are persuaded to arrive on impression that the complainant case must be probable.  What is more, as we have already observed, the opposite parties neither turned up nor let in any evidence to challenge the complainant case.  In the context of the complainant’s convincing case and in the premise of not disputing the same by the opposite parties, we are of the strong view that the complainant’s case stand well established and merit acceptance. It goes without saying that the service of the opposite party is deficient. We need hardly say, the complainant is entitled to relief.

          In the result, complaint allowed, the opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs. 34,000/-(Rupees Thirty four thousand only) the cost of the board to the complainant.  The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) to the complainant as compensation.   The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same. 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st  day  of October, 2017.

                                                                        Sd/- Sri. Antony  Xavier (Member)    

Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)          

                                                                        Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)           

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1            -           Quotation for Led Sign board

Ext.A2            -           Advocate Notice

Evidence of the opposite parties:-  Nil

  // True Copy //                              

 By Order                                                                                                                                       

Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- br/- 

Compared by:-