BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 190/2004 Filed on 11.05.2004

Dated : 30.11.2010

Complainant:

K. Manikantan Nair, Sheeja Nivas, Satyan Nagar, Industrial Estate, Pappanamcode.

(By adv.Konchira G. Neelakantan Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. The Proprietor, Maifa Furnishing, Hospital Junction, Parassala.

    

2. Shajahan @ Iruttadi, Near Pottayil Railway Bridge, Idichakkaplamoodu, Parassala.

    

3. Sulfi, S/o Jalaludeen, Salim Bungalow, Idichakkaplamoodu, Parassala.

(By adv. Mudakkal G.S. Satheesan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02.12.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 01.11.2010, the Forum on 30.11.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The opposite parties 2 & 3 approached the complainant for marketing home appliances. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the products were guaranteed by 1^st opposite party Maifa Furnishing. On that assurance the complainant purchased a Maharaja Mixi for an amount of Rs. 3,150/- with free gift of one ceiling fan and an emergency lamp. But within a short period the above said mixi became faulty and on further investigation it was found that the mixi was a duplicate one i.e; not a company made one. Complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties and demanded refund of the amount and requested to take back the items which were defective. The complainant alleges that the opposite parties exploited the complainant by unfair trade practice. Hence for the redressal of his grievances he approached this Forum.

1^st opposite party Maifa Furnishing is the only contesting party in this case. They denied the entire transaction. They stated in the version that they never sold anything to the complainant. Complainant is a stranger to them. 1^st opposite party stated that he is only the dealer of furnishing goods. He has no business of electronics and electric goods like mixi or fan. He has no knowledge about the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. They are not his representatives.

In this case 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties remained exparte. Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced one document which is marked as Ext. P1.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been unfair trade practice occurred from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant had purchased a Maharaja mixi from the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties on 20.03.2004 for an amount of Rs. 3,150/-. Opposite parties told the complainant that the product was issued from 1^st opposite party, the Maifa Furnishing. Ext. P1 is the cash memo issued by the opposite parties 2 & 3 to the complainant for the acceptance of Rs. 3,150/- for Maharaja mixi. But nowhere in the cash memo we can see the name of the opposite parties or 1^st opposite party's showroom. From this document we cannot understand who issued this cash memo to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party denied the entire allegations against them. Complainant in this case could not prove that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the representatives of the 1^st opposite party. Hence we exonerate the 1^st opposite party from liability. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties never turned up to contest the case. Hence on the basis of the affidavit filed by the complainant, we find that through unfair trade practice the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties exploited the complainant and thereby obtained an amount of Rs. 3,150/- from the complainant. The mixi supplied by them was a duplicate, substandard and defective one. For unlawful gain the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have done this type of unfair trade practice. Hence the opposite parties 2 & 3 are liable for that act. Considering the above aspects, the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 3,150/- to the complainant and shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall have the right to take possession of the items supplied by them to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Otherwise 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of November 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 190/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Cash memo dated 29.03.2004.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb