BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 150/2009 Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainant: K.S. Jayadevi, Flat No.4B, West Wind, S.I Property, opposite to Police H.Q., Vazhuthacaud, Vellayambalam-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.
Opposite party: M/s. Supreme Leather World, M.G.Road, Melepazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 27..08..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant purchased an Office bag from the opposite party, M/s. Supreme Leather World on 4/5/2009 at a cost of Rs.690/- on guaranteed assurance of the prescribed quality as promised by the opposite party, but on the next day itself while attempting to use the same it is found that the quality of the material is inferior as well as the interior lining is found damaged, contradicting the assurance given by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party on 13/5/2009 and demanded the replacement of the bag by a new bag of the specified quality as already offered by the vendor. But the opposite party was reluctant to replace the said bag stating the flimsy reason based on the inconspicuous script in the bill ie., 'Guarantee is for repair only' which is in no way binding on the consumer and hence not sustainable. 2. In this case the opposite party accepted the notice from this Forum. But did not appear before this Forum to contest the case. 3. To prove the contentions in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced the original bill as Ext.P1. The complainant produced the bag in dispute before this Forum and marked as M.O1. 4. Points that arise for consideration are: Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii) In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged, nobody cross examined the complainant. Eventhough the opposite party accepted the notice of the case but never turned up to contest the case. To prove the case of the complainant, she has produced the original bill No.631 dated 4/5/2009. As per this bill the price of the bag is Rs.690/-. The bill is marked as Ext.P1. We have carefully examined the bag which is produced as M.O1. On observation we have found that the defects narratted in the complaint are true. The purpose for which the complainant has purchased the bag for an amount of Rs.690/- has become futile. The opposite party has supplied a substandard and damaged bag compared to its price. Hence there is unfair trade practise from the side of opposite party. And moreover when the complainant informed the defect to the opposite party it was the duty of the opposite party to replace it with a defect free bag. But the opposite party did not do so. Hence there is deficiency in service from their side. From the above said discussion we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded to prove her case with sufficient proofs. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.690/- to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. The opposite party shall have the right to take the bag from this Forum after compliance of the above order. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization.
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 31st day of August, 2009. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER ad.
C.C.No.150/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Original bill dated 4/5/2009 for Rs.335/-. III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
V. Materials object:
M.O.1 : Office Bag
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 150/2009 Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainant: K.S. Jayadevi, Flat No.4B, West Wind, S.I Property, opposite to Police H.Q., Vazhuthacaud, Vellayambalam-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.
Opposite party: M/s. Supreme Leather World, M.G.Road, Melepazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 27..08..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant purchased an Office bag from the opposite party, M/s. Supreme Leather World on 4/5/2009 at a cost of Rs.690/- on guaranteed assurance of the prescribed quality as promised by the opposite party, but on the next day itself while attempting to use the same it is found that the quality of the material is inferior as well as the interior lining is found damaged, contradicting the assurance given by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party on 13/5/2009 and demanded the replacement of the bag by a new bag of the specified quality as already offered by the vendor. But the opposite party was reluctant to replace the said bag stating the flimsy reason based on the inconspicuous script in the bill ie., 'Guarantee is for repair only' which is in no way binding on the consumer and hence not sustainable. 2. In this case the opposite party accepted the notice from this Forum. But did not appear before this Forum to contest the case. 3. To prove the contentions in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced the original bill as Ext.P1. The complainant produced the bag in dispute before this Forum and marked as M.O1. 4. Points that arise for consideration are: Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii) In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged, nobody cross examined the complainant. Eventhough the opposite party accepted the notice of the case but never turned up to contest the case. To prove the case of the complainant, she has produced the original bill No.631 dated 4/5/2009. As per this bill the price of the bag is Rs.690/-. The bill is marked as Ext.P1. We have carefully examined the bag which is produced as M.O1. On observation we have found that the defects narratted in the complaint are true. The purpose for which the complainant has purchased the bag for an amount of Rs.690/- has become futile. The opposite party has supplied a substandard and damaged bag compared to its price. Hence there is unfair trade practise from the side of opposite party. And moreover when the complainant informed the defect to the opposite party it was the duty of the opposite party to replace it with a defect free bag. But the opposite party did not do so. Hence there is deficiency in service from their side. From the above said discussion we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded to prove her case with sufficient proofs. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.690/- to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. The opposite party shall have the right to take the bag from this Forum after compliance of the above order. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization.
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 31st day of August, 2009. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER ad.
C.C.No.150/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Original bill dated 4/5/2009 for Rs.335/-. III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
V. Materials object:
M.O.1 : Office Bag
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 150/2009 Dated: 31..08..2009 Complainant: K.S. Jayadevi, Flat No.4B, West Wind, S.I Property, opposite to Police H.Q., Vazhuthacaud, Vellayambalam-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 010.
Opposite party: M/s. Supreme Leather World, M.G.Road, Melepazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 27..08..2009, the Forum on 31..08..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The complainant purchased an Office bag from the opposite party, M/s. Supreme Leather World on 4/5/2009 at a cost of Rs.690/- on guaranteed assurance of the prescribed quality as promised by the opposite party, but on the next day itself while attempting to use the same it is found that the quality of the material is inferior as well as the interior lining is found damaged, contradicting the assurance given by the opposite party. The complainant approached the opposite party on 13/5/2009 and demanded the replacement of the bag by a new bag of the specified quality as already offered by the vendor. But the opposite party was reluctant to replace the said bag stating the flimsy reason based on the inconspicuous script in the bill ie., 'Guarantee is for repair only' which is in no way binding on the consumer and hence not sustainable. 2. In this case the opposite party accepted the notice from this Forum. But did not appear before this Forum to contest the case. 3. To prove the contentions in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced the original bill as Ext.P1. The complainant produced the bag in dispute before this Forum and marked as M.O1. 4. Points that arise for consideration are: Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii) In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged, nobody cross examined the complainant. Eventhough the opposite party accepted the notice of the case but never turned up to contest the case. To prove the case of the complainant, she has produced the original bill No.631 dated 4/5/2009. As per this bill the price of the bag is Rs.690/-. The bill is marked as Ext.P1. We have carefully examined the bag which is produced as M.O1. On observation we have found that the defects narratted in the complaint are true. The purpose for which the complainant has purchased the bag for an amount of Rs.690/- has become futile. The opposite party has supplied a substandard and damaged bag compared to its price. Hence there is unfair trade practise from the side of opposite party. And moreover when the complainant informed the defect to the opposite party it was the duty of the opposite party to replace it with a defect free bag. But the opposite party did not do so. Hence there is deficiency in service from their side. From the above said discussion we are of the view that the complainant has succeeded to prove her case with sufficient proofs. Hence the complaint is allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.690/- to the complainant. The opposite party shall also pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. The opposite party shall have the right to take the bag from this Forum after compliance of the above order. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter the entire amount shall carry 12% annual interest till the date of realization.
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 31st day of August, 2009. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER ad.
C.C.No.150/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Original bill dated 4/5/2009 for Rs.335/-. III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
V. Materials object:
M.O.1 : Office Bag
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
