THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 97/2011
Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 2011
Petitioner : Prasad. P.S
Puliyathottathil
Mattakkara P.O
Vadakkedam
(By Adv. Lini Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Accuracy Private Company
Ancheril Commercial Complex,
Sasthri Road, Logos Junction,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 4..4..2011 is as follows:
Petitioner purchased an Electronic weighing machine from the opposite party. At the time of purchase opposite party assured the petitioner that weighing machine which is supplied by the opposite party is of good quality and defect free. According to the petitioner within one month of date of purchase, machine showed complaints. No proper reading of the weight were recorded in the weighing machine. Petitioner entrusted the defective weighing machine to the opposite party for repair. Opposite party repaired the machine, petitioner as per the advice of the opposite party taken the machine to his shop but after few days machine showed complaints. So, the petitioner again entrusted the machine to the opposite party for his repair. But the opposite party has not so far repaired and return the machine to the petitioner. Petitioner states that machine which is supplied by the opposite party is having manufacturing defect. Petitioner states that for the last 8 months machine was kept in the office of the opposite party for repair but the same has not been so far returned
defect free. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice . So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to refund the cost of the machine with 12% interest along with litigation cost and compensation.
-2-
The notices were issued to the opposite party. Opposite party has not entered appearance and filed any version. So, opposite party was set ex-parte.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No. 1
Petitioner produced the bill which is issued by the opposite party to the petitioner, at the time of purchase of the weighing machine, same is marked as Ext. A1. Since the opposite party was set ex-parte . We are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party in supplying a defective weighing machine to a consumer amounts to unfair trade practice. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed . In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 3200/- with 12% interest from 4..4..2011 till realization. Since interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner as litigation cost. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of June, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 8..7..2009
Ext. A2: Tax invoice form Dtd: 8..7..2009
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
