Date of Complaint : 26/08/2015

                                  Date of Disposal :28/10/2016

IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

  JUDGEMENT BY SRI. V.A. PATIL, PRESIDENT

O R D E R

     This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Ops praying for refund of Rs.1,10,895/- with interest at the rate of 14% from 10/01/2015 and to pay the compensation and cost of this complaint.

1. The facts of this complaint in nutshell are that on 10/01/2015 the complainant purchased a pump set from OP-1 by paying the amount of Rs.72,995/-, and also made the expenditureof Rs.37,900/- towards installation of the said pump and other miscellaneous charges.It is the contention of the complainant, that the said pump did’t function properly even for one day.The said matter is informed to the OP-1.The OP-1 on 10/02/2015 deputed one Mr. Doddaiah and the said Doddaiah has taken back the said pump for repair and the first respondent has not returned the said pump till today.Hence the complainant issued the legal notice to the Ops on 30/06/2015, which is served on both the ops.But the OP-1 has not replied for the same and the OP-2 has given the vague reply.Hence left with no alternative the complainant approached this Forum, for the redressal of his grievances.

    

2. After registering the complaint, notices issued to the Ops and the same is served on both the Ops.OP-1 appeared personally and on 05/10/2015 filed the memo contending that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint, and after hearing both the parties, as the part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction i.e. the said pump is personally delivered by the OP-1 to the complainant and the installation work was done under the supervision of the OP-1 at complainant’s farm situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum.The said memo of OP-1 is dismissed on 12/02/2016 and the case was posted for filing of the version of OP-1.As notice is served on OP-2 and remained absent.Hence, OP-2 placed exparte.After that sufficient time is granted to the OP-1 to file the version, OP-1 failed to file the version.Hence on 14/04/2016 the version of the OP-1 was taken as not field and the case was posted for filing of the affidavit of the complainant.On 14/09/2016 complainant council filed the affidavit of the complainant, along with memo to treat the affidavit as written argument.As the OP-1 has not filed the version and the complainant’s council requested to post the case for order.

    

3. On perusal of the complaint and affidavit, the points that arise for our consideration are as follows;

    

4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought?

    

5. What order?

    

    

6. Our findings on the points supra are as shown below.,

    

         Point No.1 :-Partly affirmative

         Point No.2 :-As per the final orders for the following;

    

   R E A S O N S

7. Point No.1:- Complainant has filed this complaint, claiming for refund of the money and compensation and cost of this complaint.  In order to prove his case as already stated supra, the complainant has filed his affidavit duly sworn on oath, in respect of the averments of his case, made out in the complaint and produced the documents such as copy of the bill, legal notice and postal acknowledgements.  The contents of the said documents also supports the contents of the evidence affidavit of the complainant.  Thus the oral and documentary evidences placed on record fully corroborate the case of the complainant.  The said evidence of the complainant is neither challenged nor resisted by the Ops in any manner.  Thus the evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Hence under these circumstances we have no other alternative except to believe the said evidence of the complainant and the case made out in the complaint.

    

8. In view of the afore said reasons, we have no other alternative except to hold that the complainant has established his case by placing the materials before this Forum.On the strength of the affidavit of the complaint, the only irresistible conclusion that arises is that the Ops are guilty of deficiency of services.Hence the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of Rs.72,995/-to the complainant towards the purchase money of pump set, as per the bill.As there are no documents to show that the complainant has paid the sum of Rs.37,900/-towards installation.Hence the same is not allowed.Hence we answer point No.01 in partly affirmative.

    

    

9. Point No.2:- Hence in the final result we proceed to pass the following;

    

   O R D E R

10. The complaint is partly allowed and the Ops are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.72,995/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 10/01/2015 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

11. The Ops shall pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

12. The complaint is at liberty to recover the said amount as per law.

13. Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to both the parties.

     

(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this  28^th day of  October  2016)

        (LATHA.M.S.)           (V.A. PATIL)              (K.D. PARVATHY)       

           MEMBER              PRESIDENT                    MEMBER