Kerala

Kollam

CC/07/6

Vishnu Narayanan,S/o. Vasudevan, Aswathy Bhavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprieter, Babu Raj and Company - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691 013
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/6

Vishnu Narayanan,S/o. Vasudevan, Aswathy Bhavan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Proprieter, Babu Raj and Company
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President 2. RAVI SUSHA : Member 3. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

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 R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. Complainant has filed this complaint for the replacement of pump set with a defect free pump or refund its value along with Rs. 1500/- as cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant had purchased a ½ HP Motor pump manufactured by Kera Pump from the opp.party. Opp. Party make to believe the complainant that the Kera pump is extreme quality and well function for a long time than other pump. Opp.party also informed the complainant that the pump is having a Guarantee of one year and if any defect occurs during the guarantee period he will replace their pum. From the every beginning the pump was defective and the month of October 2006, the pump became refund. The matter was informed to the opp.party and the mechanic of opp.party examined the pump and found it defective. He assured that the pump will be replaced with a new one. Complainant contacted the opp.party some any times and at last he approached the opp.party personally on December 15, 2006. But opp.party was not ready to replace the pump. The pump was within the guarantee period. Opp.party is bound to replace the pump set with a new defect free one. The act of opp.party amounts to unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on his part. Due to the act of opp.party, complainant suffered mental agony . Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief. The complainant filed affidavit. Ext.P1 and P2 marked. As evidence. The opp.party remained absent. Hence he stands exparte. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. 2. Reliefs and cost. The complainant could prove his case through the complaint, affidavit and exhibits marked on. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the opp.party to replace the pump with a defect free brand and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. I N D E X P1. – Authorization letter P2. – Original bill




......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY : President
......................RAVI SUSHA : Member
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member