D.O.F:17/03/2020
D.O.O:20/11/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.47/2020
Dated this, the 20th day of November 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Babu Mannamparambil
S/o Joseph
Kadumeni, Chittarikkal Village
Kadumeni (P.O)
Vellarikundu Taluk
And
1. The Manager
UPAS Rubberised Coir Products,
Vallappuzha, Nilamboor,
R.S.P.O
Malappuram.
(Adv: Manikandhan Nambiar.K)
2. Shan Muhammed
R/in therented house of Leala
Opposite Health Centre, :Opposite Parties
Chapparapadavu
Chapparapadavu P.O
Kannur.
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that the Manager of Opposite Party No:1, came to his house and offered for sale of bed of Rs. 7200/- for Rs.4000/-. Believing his representation complainant purchased the bed by paying Rs. 4000/-. The Opposite Party issued bill and promised guarantee of 5 years with replacement warranty. But after one week of its use bed lost its utility and thus became not fit for use for the purpose, it was duly informed to the Opposite Party but no response and no reply to phone call also. Though Opposite party promised replacement so far not complied. Thus there is deficiency in service and negligence from the Opposite party in not replacing the bed despite its warranty. Complainant claim Rs. 4000/-as price paid, compensation Rs.2000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party filed written version Opposite Party No: 1 has no manager by name Shan. Bill is fake one. Mobile number are not connected with Opposite Party No:1 . No head office in Kochi or branches, no business of curtain supply. The opposite Party is a coir matters company based in Malappuram. Their products are highly moving somebody might have cheated complainant by issuing false bill. Hence complaint to be dismissed.
The complainant impleaded sales person Shan Mohammed as opposite Party No:2. But not appeared.
The complainant filed chief affidavit. He produced Ext A1 to A4 documents marked. Ext A1and A2 is slip for payment petition details, Ext A3 is photographs, Ext A4 is vehicle information. The Opposite Party filed chief affidavit he produced and marked documents Ext B1 to B4. Ext B1 is tax invoice, Ext B2 Police complaint against Opposite party, Ext B3 sales register and B4 invoice.
Following points raised for consideration in the above case.
- Whether there is any privity of contract of service between the complainant and Opposite Party No:1 in the case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party No: 2 is supplying and is not offering replacement and other services?
- Whether complainant entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the points are discussed together
The complainant though claimed relief against Opposite Party No:1 in evidence he says he paid money to Opposite Party No: 2. In cross he deposed that on verifying version he came to know that he conducted business and paid money to Opposite Party No:2 and not with Opposite Party No:1. Mobile is answered by Opposite Party No: 2. He came to know he is cheated by Opposite Party No:2. He admits that he filed the complaint since Opposite Party No: 2 told him to do so. He did not make any enquiry in branches of Opposite Party No:1.
Further Opposite Party No: 1produced documents Ext B1 to B4 and no such order is placed or delivered during the period by Opposite Party No: 1 to complainant. So issue No:1 is found in favour of Opposite Party No: 1 that there is no relationship between Opposite Party No:1and complainant. Hence claim against Opposite Party No: 1 is rejected claim against Opposite Party No: 2is found to be genuine one. Notice issued by commission to Opposite Party No:2 in the case returned as refused endorsement by postal authorities dated 01/11//2021, and hence treated exparte.
Complainant seeks Rs. 4000/- as value of defective bed. Though no steps taken to prove manufacturing defect, case of complainant is found to be true on the basis of pleading and evidence in particular Opposite Party No: 2 did not appear before the commission despite on receipt of notice. Then there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service Opposite Party No: 2 in supplying substandard bed to the complainant. For which Opposite Party No:2 is liable to pay value of the bed paid by the complainant and also compensation for deficiency in service and negligence and unfair trade practice commission finds that Rs. 10,000/-in the reasonable compensation and complainant also entitled for cost of litigation.
In the result complaint is allowed as follows:
The Opposite Party No: 2 is directed to refund Rs. 4000/-collected towards price of bed to complainant and also pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation within 1 month from the date of service of the order.
In default Opposite Party No: 2 is liable to pay interest at 8% per annum from date of filing complaint till payment there of complainant and also pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Opposite Party No: 1 is exonerated for liability.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 & A2 – Slips
A3- Photographs
A4- RTO Vehicle information
B1- Tax invoice
B2- Police complaint against OP
B3- Sales register
B4- Invoice
Witness Examined
Pw1- Babu. M.J
Dw1- Rajesh. T.M
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
