Kerala

Wayanad

21/2006

John - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vincent - Opp.Party(s)

09 Aug 2007

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 21/2006

John
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Vincent
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

ORDER By Sri. Gheevarghese, President: The Gist of the Complaint is as follows: The Complainant availed the cable connection for working of his Television. The Opposite Party is the Supplier of the cable connection. The Opposite Party had given the cable connection on 5.10.2003. Even though the Complainant enjoyed the cable connection from 15.10.2003 to 5.8.2004, the supply of cable was not proper, picture was very vague and intermittently affected of grains. The Complainant informed the Opposite party of the improper and unclear picture. No steps were taken by the Opposite Party to cure the defect in cable connection. The Complainant had given Rs.2,000/- as the charge for the cable installation and connection at the time of installation. The complainant had been giving the subscription of Rs.100/- in every month to the Opposite party. The remittance of the monthly subscription was continued up to 5.8.2004. Even in the neighbourhood houses the picture in TV was not clear, this too was supplied by the Opposite party. The -2- Complainant was asked to refund the advance amount but the Opposite party was not ready to attend the demand paying back the charge received towards the installation. The Complaint is filed in the deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite party. Notice was sent to the Opposite Party and it was served on him. The Opposite party neither appeared nor represented the case. The Opposite party was set exparty. The Complainant is examined as PW1, the receipt of the installation charge is marked as Ext. A1. The subscription receipt from 5.10.2003 to 5.2.2004 are marked as Ext.A2 series. The subscription card is marked as Ext.A3. A witness who resides in the neighbourhood of the Complainant house is also examined as PW2, The person also was examined as PW2 up held the allegation raised by the complainant. The Complainant is to be compensated with the refunding of the installation charges and also for the cost of the complaint. It is found that the act of the Opposite party is absolutely against the interest of a Consumer. The Opposite party is directed to pay the Complainant Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) along with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards the compensation. The Complainant is also entitled to receive Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and Fifty only) as the cost from the Opposite Party within One month from the dated of this Order. In case if any failure to comply with this order, the Complainant is entitled to execute this Order as per law and realise the amount with 9% interest from the date of this Order till realisation. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 8th day of August 2007. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True Copy/ PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. (Contd...3) -3- APPENDIX Witnesses for Complainant: PW1 John Complainant. PW2 Samod Student. Witnesses for Opposite Party: Nil. Exhibits for Complainant: A1 Receipt of installation charge. Dt: 5.10.2003. A2(Series) Subscription receipt. - A3 Subscription Card. Exhibits for Opposite Party: Nil. PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. M/ Compared by:-




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW