Kerala

Trissur

CC/05/1266

Mrs.Subhash Bhasura - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thrissur Computer Centre Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Joseph Freemon

23 Nov 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/1266

Mrs.Subhash Bhasura
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Thrissur Computer Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Mrs.Subhash Bhasura

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Thrissur Computer Centre Pvt. Ltd. 2. Managing Director

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Joseph Freemon

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. K.F.Pappachan and Suchithra K.S.



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant’s case is as follows:
           The complainant bought a Canon M.P.C.400 printer for Rs.45,000/- vide bill No.6340 from the respondents. The Sales Executive of the respondents has assured that each colour copy would cost only below Rs.10/- but when copies taken it costs Rs.80/-.
The matter was informed to the respondents and they replace the ink. But no copies would be taken with the ink supplied. The matter was again informed to the respondents. They agreed to cure the defect, but the defect could not be cured. At last it was told that it was because of the defectiveness of the machine. A notice was issued to the respondent on 7/5/2004. But there was no remedy. Hence the complaint.
 
           2. The respondent called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. The complainant has filed affidavit and produced documents to prove the case. They are marked as Exhibits P1 to P9 and the Commission report is marked as Exhibit C1.
 
           4. The complainant’s case is that on purchasing the machine the respondents promised that on taking colour copies the cost of each copy would be less than Rs.10/-. When the copies were taken the actual cost became Rs.80/-. When it was complained they supplied another ink, but the copies were not clear. The Sales Executive of the respondents informed that the machine was defective. Even though a notice was issued to replace the machine there was no remedy. The Exhibit P2 is evident that an assurance was given by the respondents as claimed by the complainant. Exhibit C1 report shows the unfair trade practice committed by them. And there is no evidence contrary to the evidence produced by the complainant.
 
           5. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to take back the printer and refund Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand only) with 12%interest from 29/3/2003 till realization with cost Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) which includes the Commission batta also. The awarding of 12% interest is a sufficient compensation and no separate compensation is necessary. Comply the order within one month.
 

                Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of November 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S