IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

                                 the  22^nd day of June, 2020.

                                      Filed on 19-08-2019

  Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )

2.  Smt. Sholly.P.R. LLB (Member)

3.  C.K. Lekhamma .LLB(Member)

                                                              In                                     

                                                   CC/No.208/2019

                                                             between

 Complainant:-                                                          Opposite parties:-

Sri.N.Kumar                                                          The Proprietor

Mammoottil Veedu                                               Sree Selvom metals                

Thiruvambadi Ward                                              West of Pazhavangadi Church

Pazhaveedu P.O.                                                   Church Road, Alappuzha

Alappuzha

                                                         O R D E R

C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

         Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

         The complainant entrusted his induction cooker with the opposite party on 20.06.2019.    The opposite party gave assurance to repair the product.  After 2 weeks the defect has been rectified and returned the disputed product by the opposite party and received Rs.300/- as repairing charge.  But the complainant unable to use the same since he found that its defect is still existing and has not rectified by the opposite party.  Again he entrusted the gadget to the opposite party.  After some days he approached the opposite party for collecting the cooker, he again demanded Rs.150/- for repairing charge.  Questioning about that opposite party behaved rashly towards the complainant and he did not return the cooker also.  Hence for the redressal of his grievance the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation for deficiency in service and other inconvenience committed by the opposite party.

2.      The opposite party abstained from the proceedings despite service of notice from the Forum.  The complainant filed proof affidavit.  Not adduced any documentary evidence.  Thereafter we have heard the complainant.

3.      Points for our determination are:-

      (1)  Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service?

      (2)  Compensation and cost if any? 

4.      According to the complainant for rectifying the defect of induction cooker the same was entrusted to the opposite party.  At the first instance the opposite party received Rs.300/- as repairing charge from the complainant.  But the complainant found that the defect of the product was persisting he again entrusted the cooker to the opposite party, but till date the opposite party has neither rectify the defect nor return the same.  As a fact that the opposite party has not appear before the Forum even after the receipt of notice.  But nothing is before us to prove the transaction between the parties.  In the absence of cogent evidence we find no merit in the averments of the complainant.  On demand opposite party will return the induction cooker to the complainant.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.   

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 22^nd day of June, 2020.

                                                          Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :

Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)

Sd/-Smt. Sholy P.R (Member) :

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- Nil

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                         By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-