D.O.F. 16.09.2010

                                                                                  D.O.O. 28.01.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K. Gopalan                :       President

                                      Smt. K.P. Preethakumari :       Member

Smt. M.D. Jessy               :       Member

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2011.

C.C.No.233/2010

The Proprietor,

K.K. General Traders,

Cheruvathalamotta,                                             :         Complainant       

P.O. Chattukappara,

Kannur District,                     

 (Rep. by Adv. K. Reghunathan )   

The Proprietor,

M/s. Aiswarya Scales,

Kottath Building,                                                 :         Opposite party

Iritty Road, Mattannur,

P.O. Mattannur, Kannur Dist.

(Rep. by Adv.

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President.

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 2,560 with interest towards loss sustained by the complainant and ` 50,000 as compensation.

          The facts of the case of complainant in brief are as follows:

The complainant had purchased a weighing machine and two steel barrels on 30.03.2010.  The cost of the steel barrel is ` 1,560 and cost of tap is ` 350.  The labour charge is ` 150.  The steel barrel supplied by the opposite party is of substandard quality.  When it was used it was found leaking and the same reported to opposite party.  The representative of opposite party attended the complaint and did something to prevent the leakage.  But leakage again started in the following day itself.  So the opposite party promised to take back the barrels.  But he did not fulfilled his promise.  Hence it caused loss and mental agony to complainant. Lawyer notice was sent and the same received by opposite party and he did not sent any reply.  Since the notice is not replied complainant understand that opposite party is not going to solve the problem.

          After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to opposite party.  When the matter was called on 08.11.2010 opposite party was represented and with an understanding posted for settlement of the matter amicably.  The matter was again represented twice for settlement but no settlement was arrived at and the matter posted for version to another day.  There after opposite party remained absent and his name called in the open court, and thereby set exparte.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A4 on his side.

          The main point to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?  Complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings.  He is stated that the weighing machine and the barrels were purchased from opposite party.  The cost of the steel barrels is ` 1,560 and the cost of tap is ` 350.  The labour charge comes to `150.  He is also stated that opposite parties representative came and repaired the barrels once to on the next day itself the barrel was started the alleged leaking.  He has sent legal notice but on receiving the same, opposite party kept mum without sending any reply.  Ext.A1 is the copy of legal notice.  Ext.A2 is the postal receipt and Ext.A3 is the acknowledgement.  Ext. A1 to A3 proves that complainant had sent the legal notice and the same was received by opposite party.  He has also stated that opposite party did not reply the notice.

          Though opposite party received the complaint he has not replied the notice.  Non-replying of legal notice itself is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Ext.A4 undoubtedly proves that the alleged items had purchased from the opposite party by the complainant.  Opposite party has the bounden duty to repair the barrel and so also to sent the reply to the legal notice which he has not complied with.  There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant.  On going through the available evidence on record it can be seen that the complainant is succeed in establishing his case.  It is also necessary to take into account that this is a matter in which opposite party agreed to settle the matter and three postings were specifically meant for settlement for which opposite party responded irresponsibly which cannot be justified at all.   This negative  attitude together with the evidence adduced by the complainant undoubtedly leads to conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to pay price of the barrel as well as compensation.  Considering the entire aspect we are under impression that opposite party has to pay an amount of ` 5,000 as compensation to meet the total loss sustained by the complainant.  Opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of           ` 1,000 as cost of this litigation.   

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay an amount of ` 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant and to pay an amount of ` 1,000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                          Sd/-                        Sd/-                         Sd/-

President                    Member                             Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Copy of Lawyer notice dated 11.06.2010.

A2.  Postal receipt dated 11.06.2010.

A3.  Acknowledgement Card dated 16.06.2010.

A4.  Order form dated 30.03.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for the opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT