Kerala

Wayanad

CC/32/2013

M.P. Saidalavi, Marapatta House,Puthoorvayal Post, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Electro Link, Near Railway Gate, Bappankade, - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2014

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/32/2013
 
1. M.P. Saidalavi, Marapatta House,Puthoorvayal Post,
Kalpetta
Wayanad
Kerala.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, Electro Link, Near Railway Gate, Bappankade,
Koyilandy,
Kozhikode,
Kerala.
2. The Secretary
Agro-Horty Society,Near Anandaveera Theater,Kalpetta.
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:

Attracted by the demonstration and offers by the opposite party No.1 the complainant booked one electric cooker on 12.02.2011 from the opposite party No.1's exhibition stall allotted by the opposite party No.2, as part of the Wayanad Flower show 2011 conducted by opposite party No.2. As an advance to this booking complainant paid Rs.200/- to opposite party No.1 and received the Order Form dated 12.02.2011. On receiving the payment opposite party No.1 assured that they will deliver the product as early as possible at complainant's residence. Thereafter several occasions complainant tried to contact them in which the contact number mentioned in the bill, but opposite party No.1 never responded to this. Hence filed this complaint. The complainant prays for return of the advance amount together with bill amount and compensation and cost of this proceedings.

 

 

2. Notices served to opposite parties. Opposite party No.1's notice returned stating that “left without intimation” hence he set ex-parte on 05.03.2014. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version and contented that there is no consumer relation between complainant and opposite party No.2. This opposite party No.2 is an unnecessary party to this case. The opposite party No.2 allotted a stall to opposite party No.1 in 2011 Wayanad Flower Show. Otherwise no consumer relation in between complainant and opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 further stated that the time limit for filing this petition has already been over and this complaint is barred by limitation. So the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

 

3. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Relief and Cost.

 

4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case he filed affidavit and examined as PW1, and Ext.A1 marked. Ext.A1 is the Order Form given by the opposite party No.1 at the time of booking. On going through this document it is seen that complainant paid Rs.200/- as advance to the cooker. The balance payable amount shown in the bill is Rs.3,750/-. In Order form after delivery date we can see “will call” that means the opposite party No.1 will call the complainant at the time of delivery of product. The booked date mentioned is 12.02.2011, after booking complainant contacted opposite party No.1 several times but he could not get the product. This complaint filed on 13.02.2013 ie the very next day after two years. But in Ext.A1 after date of delivery it is mentioned as “will call” specific date of delivery not mentioned in the order form. At the time of booking opposite party No.1 promised that they will deliver the product soon, so there is no limitation in the case. The complainant waited for a long period to get the ordered product, hence filed this complaint. So we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the advance amount with compensation and cost of this proceedings. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

5. Point No.2:- The opposite parties No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the grievances of the complainant because opposite party No.2 allotted the stall for opposite party No.1 to conduct their business after receiving consideration. So opposite party No.2 cannot be exempted from his liability.

 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 are directed to return the advance amount of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) only together with cost and compensation of Rs.1,300/- (Rupees One Thousand and Three Hundred) only to the complainant. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of April 2014.

Date of Filing:13.02.2013.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

 Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Saidalavi. Complainant.

 Witness for the Opposite Parties:

 Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Order Form. Dt:12.02.2011.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

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.