O R D E R.
By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case:- The Complainant is running a resort under the name and style Thejas Resorts at Kattayad, Vinayaka Hospital Road, Sulthan Bathery. The representative of the Opposite Party approached the Complainant and told that they have been supplying a food waste dispensing equipment named as ‘Food Waste Crusher’, and explained its merits to the Complainant convincing that the same is of very good quality. Believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant decided to purchase the same and placed an order. The Opposite Party delivered the item at Complainant’s cost on 10.07.2017. At the time of placing the order, the Opposite Party told the Complainant that the cost of the product is Rs. 44,736/- including transportation charge and tax and also told that they will charge only Rs. 36,000/- as a special discount price to the Complainant. The product was purchased on the basis of such an understanding. The Complainant tried to operate the device as per the directions given by the Opposite Party but it was not functioning properly as promised. The product was of very poor quality so the food waste could not disposed of due to non-functioning of the equipment. The Complainant informed this matter to the Opposite Party several
times through phone and email. But the Opposite Party had not taken any effective steps to cure the defects for functioning it. Moreover the Opposite Party insisted
and demanded extra amount of Rs. 8,736/-as against agreed amount. Hence there is unfair trade practice, cheating and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. The Complainant faced much difficulty, mental agony and loss of time. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party demanding the removal of the product from the Complainant’s premises and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The Opposite Party received the notice and sent a reply stating false and frivolous contentions instead of acting as per the facts noted in the notice of the Complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. Opposite Party entered appear and filed version. After that on the dates of evidence and hearing of argument he remained absent and the Commission set him ex-parte.
4. On perusal of complaint and documents, the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service/unfair trade practice from
the Opposite Party’s side?
2. Whether the Opposite Party is liable to remove the Food Waste Crusher
from Complainant’s premises.
3. Whether the Opposite Party is liable to pay any amount as
compensation?
4. Relief and cost.
5. Point No. 1 to 4 :- For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are
considered together.
The Complainant was asked to adduce evidence in support of her allegations contained in the complaint. The Complainant has filed chief affidavit in which she fully corroborated the allegations contained in the complaint. The Complainant was examined as PW-1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A-1 to A-6. We perused the material placed on record by the Complainant. It is the fact borne out from the record under Ext.A1 Photostat copy of Tax Invoice issued by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had purchased the Food Waste Crusher. The Complainant also produced copy of e-mail communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. Ext.A2 clearly shows that the Complainant intimated the defects to the Opposite Party within the reasonable time. Ext.A3 shows that Complainant issued lawyer notice to Opposite Party on 17/03/2018. Ext. A4 is the postal receipt to prove issuance of lawyer notice. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgement card to prove the acceptance of lawyer notice. Ext.A6 is the reply notice.
6. The main allegation set forth in the complaint is that the food waste unit sold by the Opposite Party is a defective one and the Opposite Party failed to give proper service to the Complainant. Admittedly, the product having some defects and as such it could not serve the purpose and so she faced some difficulties. As a distributer cum proprietor the Opposite Party had the responsibility to cure the
complaints. The Opposite Party were granted sufficient opportunities to produce evidence in order to prove their case. It clearly proves that the Opposite Party failed to contest the case. From the available evidence, the Commission reached a finding that the Opposite Party has failed to do their duty and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party which has caused great mental agony to the Complainant. So, the points are found infavour of the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to remove the Food waste crusher from the Complainant’s premises within one month from the receipt of this order and return its bill amount and pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards cost to the Complainant within one month from the receipt of the this order failing which the amount will carry 6 per cent interest.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the day of 16th February 2021.
Date of filing:18.06.2018
PRESIDENT:
MEMBER :
MEMBER :
APPENDIX.
Witnesses for the complainant:
PW1. Sajila Krishnakumar Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:10.07.2017.
A2(a) Copy of e-mail.
A2(b) Copy of e-mail.
A2(c) Copy of e-mail.
A2(d) Copy of e-mail.
-6 –
A2(e) Copy of e-mail.
A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:17.03.2018.
A4. Postal Receipt.
A5. Acknowledgment .
A6. Letter. dt:24.03.2018.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
