Kerala

Kottayam

CC/09/214

M.P.Karunakaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2009

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/214

M.P.Karunakaran		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

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.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present.

Sri.Santhoshkesavanath.P. President

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.


 

CC.No.214/09

Friday, the day of 30th, October, 2009.


 

Petitioner. M.P.Karunakaran

Muthukuttiyil house

Thazhathuvadakara P.O.

Kangazha, Kottayam.

Vs.

Opposite party. The Manager

Arun Electronics

A House of electronics

Electrical Shope parts &

Servicing, Manimala Road

Karukachal.

O R D E R

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.

The case of the complainant is as follows.

He had entrusted the tape recorder on 30/8/2007 with the opposite party for repairs. On the day when the opposite party agreed to return the tape recorder after repairs the opposite party submits that the tape recorder was not seen there. Thereafter somany times the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the tape recorder. All occasionsthe opposite parties informed that they have not seen the tape recorder so far. There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared some postings. But the opposite party did not filed any version or contest the case. Hence the opposite party set ex-party.

-2-

The complainant examined as PW1 and A1 was marked.

Heard complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not returned the tape recorder to the complainant after repairs. From A1 it can be seen that the complainant had entrusted the tape recorder to the opposite party for repairs. But the opposite party has not contest the case of the complainant, even after giving sufficient opportunities. Hence the case of the complainant was un-challenged. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the case of the complainant. We are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed. However the complainant had not produced any evidence to show that the actual price of the tape recorder.

In the result the case of the complainant is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/-

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-


 

APPENDIX

  1. A1 is the copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

By Orders,

 

Senior Superintendent.

Kgr/4 copies.


 


 

 




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P