Dated this the 20^th  day of July 2013

 

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

Mohandasan.P

S/o.Krishnan Nair. C,

Puthen Veettil House,

Kanniyampuram,

Ottapalam                                                   -        Complainant

(Party in person)

 

V/s

The Proprietor,

Rubi Home Holders,

Thylan Building,

First floor,

S.R.M. Road,Cochi – 18                                   -   Opposite party

 

          By Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. MEMBER

 

Case of the complainant is as follows:

 

Both the complainant and his friend booked for chappathi maker in the stall of the opposite party during the exhibition conducted by Manorama Group and Nehru Group together.  They have paid an amount of Rs.400/- as advance. The cost of the two chappathi maker is Rs.3400/-. Opposite party informed that after deducting Rs.400/- balance amount of Rs.3,000/- has to pay in the hands of their salesman, who will come in the house of the customers and demonstrate the chappathi maker.

On 23/2/2013, the salesman of opposite party named Aju came in the house of the complainant’s friend and demonstrated one chappathi machine. The other one is not demonstrated due to the lack of time. At that time the complainant was not in his house. When the complainant took the chappathi maker to his house and operated, the machine is not working properly. The complainant informed the problem to the opposite party through telephone. But they have not turned up. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to take back the chappathi maker and refund the amount with Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost.

Opposite party set exparte. Complainant filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 and A2 marked. Chappathi maker produced and marked as MO1.

 

Heard the matter.

 

Issues to be considered are

 

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost ?

 

The complainant has booked for a chappathi maker in the stall of opposite party during the exhibition in the Indira Gandhi Stadium, Palakkad conducted by Manorama Group and Nehru Group together. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.200/- in advance. The balance amount has to be paid when the salesman of the opposite party bring the chappathi maker to the house of the complainant. Opposite party also informed that the salesman will demonstrate  the chappathi maker. On 23^rd February the  salesman brought the chappthi maker but did not demonstrate the same. At the time of hearing the complainant submitted that when the machine is switched on it is not possible to stand nearby due to the high temperature. So that the newly purchased chappathi maker costs Rs.1700/- became useless. As opposite party set exparte the contentions of the complainant stand unchallenged.

In the above circumstances we are of the view that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund the amount i.e. Rs.1700/-, cost of the chappathi maker, along with Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party is at liberty to get back the chappathi maker from the Forum on complying the order.       

Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.           

 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 20^th  day of July 2013.

   

Seena H

President

     Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

 

 

 

Ext.A1 –  Bill for Rs.1500/- issued by Ruby Home Holders to the complainant

Ext.A2 – Copy of complaint letter sent to opposite party by the complainant

Nil

 

 

MO1 – Chappathi Maker

 

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.