Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/92

K.Bhaskaran, Aattuvaarathu Thodiyil veedu, Ayathil - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sagar India, Vaidyasala nagar-317 - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2007

ORDER


KOLLAM
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/92

K.Bhaskaran, Aattuvaarathu Thodiyil veedu, Ayathil
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager, Sagar India, Vaidyasala nagar-317
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER This complaint is filed directing the opp.party to pay a sum of Rs.3595/- and cost. It is stated in the complaint as follows: The complainant purchased a grinder with guarantee from the opp,party and paid Rs.3595/- as value of the grinder. Grinder became faulty on the next day of purchase. The complainant informed that to the opp.party many times. On the next month two men of opp.party came to the complainant’s house, took the grinder and guarantee paper and gave him a receipt. But after that opp.parties did not turn up to repair the grinder or replace the same. Hence the complainant prays relief from the opp.parties The complainant was examined in chief as PW.1 and marked two documents Exts.P1and P2 The opp.party dared not to turn up. Hence he stands declared exparte. The point to be determined is whether the complainant deserves relief as prayed for. The complainant could prove his case through the complaint, affidavit, deposition in chief and the exhibits marked. The complainant was heard. As no evidence is adduced from the side of the opp.party, we are constrained to rely upon the exparte evidence. Ext.P1 shows that the opp.party has received back the grinder on 14.1.2007. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get value of the grinder and compensation. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.party is directed to pay Rs.3595/- with 9% interest. Opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 27th day of September, 2007 K. Vijayakumaran Achary : Sd/- Adv. Ravi Susha : Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT. I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – K. Bhaskaran List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt P2. – Order Form