CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.95/11
Tuesday the 27th day of September, 2011
Petitioner : Santhosh. T.Vadakkel,
Vadakkel House,
Kunnonny PO,
Poonjar, Kottayam.
(Adv. Roy Jose)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Proprietor,
Darsana Marbles,
S.H. Mount PO,
Kottayam.
(Adv.K.R.Ramachandran)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 08/04/11, is as follows:-
Petitioner, a resident of Kunnonni, purchased tiles from the opposite party on 25/01/2011. The total price of the commodities is Rs.52500/- and out of which the petitioner paidRs.45,000/- on 25/01/2011. Opposite party promised to deliver the commodities to the house of the petitioner within three days. Later on petitioner cancelled the order of NSA powder worth Rs.3200/- on 27/01/2011. On 28/1/11 opposite party delivered commodities at the residence of the petitioner, except 200 sq.ft designer tiles worth Rs.6200/- plus 12.50% tax till date. On 11-2-11 petitioner issued a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party. But the opposite party did not comply with the notice nor sent any reply. On 25/1/11 petitioner ordered to purchase 946 sq.ft of vetrified tiled and the price charged was Rs.37/- per sq.ft plus 12.50% tax. Each box contain 16 sq.ft tiles and the MRP written on the box is Rs.550/- inclusive of all taxes.. Opposite party illegally extracted Rs.7083.50 than the MRP including taxes. The petitioner states that the above acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So he prays for direction to the opposite party to refund Rs.7083.50 with 12% interest. Petitioner also claims refund of Rs.6200/-. Petitioner claims Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance but not filed any version , even after several postings, so opposite party was set expartee.
Points for determination are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext.A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the opposite party has not delivered commodities purchased by the petitioner, as promised. As a result of the said acts petitioner sustained a loss of Rs.6200/- plus 12.50% tax. The other allegation of the petitioner is that opposite party extracted Rs.7083.50 in excess of MRP printed on the boxes. The box produced by the petitioner is marked as Ext.A5. From Ext.A5 it can be seen that the price printed is Rs.550/-. Without any contra evidence we are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. In our view act of the opposite party in non-delivery of the purchased articles and extraction of money over and above the MRP price amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point no.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed
In the result opposite party is ordered to refund the petitioner Rs.7083.50. Opposite party is ordered to refund the petition Rs. 6200/- plus 12.50% tax, opposite party is further ordered to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of order. If the order is not complied as directed petitioner entitle for 9% interest for the awarded amount from the date of the order till realisation.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Bill No.2425 dtd 25/2/11
Ext.A2-Copy of lawyer’s notice dtd 11/2/11
Ext.A3-Postal receipt dtd 11/2/11
Ext.A4-Postal AD card dtd 12/2/11
Ext.A5-Cover of the commodity.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
