Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

30^th day of November 2022

CC 86/21 filed on 27/02/21

Complainants        :   1)  Satheesh P.G., Panakkaparambil House,

                                      Thrithallur P.O., Thrissur – 680 619.

                                 2)  Dhanya Satheesh, W/o Satheesh P.G.,

                                      Panakkaparambil House, Thrithallur P.O.,

                                      Thrissur – 680 619.

                                      (By Adv. A.D. Benny, Thrissur)

Opposite Party      :         Proprietor, PowerSol, Mampalliparambu Road,

                                      Edappally, Cochin – 682 024.

                                      (Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri. C.T. Sabu, President :

          Facts of the Case as follows:

          The complainant purchased an incubator for his wife on 19/10/19 vide invoice No.794 for Rs.1,88,800/- for their livelihood. At the time of purchase of the machine the opposite party made believe that the incubator is in good quality. But the eggs are not hatched properly as assured by the opposite party. When the matter was intimated before the opposite party, they sent the technician but he was unable to rectify the defect of the incubator. Now the incubator kept idle without any use. Finally the complainant caused lawyer notice dtd. 17/01/21 which also had not yielded any result. Hence this complaint.

          2) Proper notice issued to the opposite party by the Commission. The opposite party has not cared to enter appearance or filed their version before the Commission. The proceedings against the opposite party were set ex-parte and posted for evidence of the complainant.

          3) During the pendency of the case complainant filed an IA 33/22 to appoint  an Expert Commissioner for the inspection and for report, it was allowed. The Commissioner has inspected the machine after issuing notice to both parties and filed detailed report with regard to the present condition of the incubator. When the case came for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in which he affirmed and explained all the contentions of the compliant in detail. From his part produced 4 documents which are marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the Invoice No.794 dtd. 19/10/20 issued by the Powersol Marketing. Ext. A2 is the warranty card, Ext. A3 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 17/01/21. Ext. A4 is the Postal A/D card. The report of the Expert marked as C1.

          4) We  have  thoroughly  examined  the  averments  of  the  proof affidavit  and perused the documents produced from the side of the complainant and  examined  the report filed by the Expert Commissioner. Ext. A1 Invoice would  go  to  show  that  the  complainant  have  paid  Rs.1,88,800/- towards the  purchase  price  of  the  incubator as on 19/10/20. Ext. A2 would go to show  that  there  is  warranty  for  the  machine  for  one  year  from  the  date of purchase. The complainant has issued lawyer notice and the same is received by the opposite party is evident from Ext. A3 & A4 documents. The Ext.C1 report would go to show that there is clear manufacturing defect for the incubator and it is not working properly. The expert also mentioned the expenses incurred by the complainant for installation of the incubator. As per the report, at present the incubator is kept idle without any use. The C1 report itself is sufficient to prove the case of the complainant. As there is no contra evidence we have no other option than to believe the proof affidavit of the complainant. The complainant succeeded to prove a cogent case in his favour. We are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite party deliberately evaded from the process of law without appearing before the Commission. Hence we are inclined to allow this complaint.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to

1. Refund to the complainant Rs.1,88,800/- (Rupees One lakh eighty eight thousand and eight hundred only), the purchase price of the incubator,
2. Pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the inconvenience, mental agony and hardship undergone by the complainant, and
3. Pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards cost of litigation.

The order shall be complied within one month of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable for interest @ 9% p.a. for the entire amount from the date of this order. The opposite party is entitled to get back the incubator supplied by him after payment of the entire amount as per this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th day of November 2022.

   Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                       Sd/-             

Sreeja S.                                    Ram Mohan R                        C. T. Sabu

Member                                            Member                                              President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. A1 Invoice No.794 dtd. 19/10/20 issued by the Powersol Marketing.

Ext. A2 warranty card,

Ext. A3 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 17/01/21.

Ext. A4 Postal A/D card.

Ext. C1. Expert Commissioner’s Report

                                                                                                     Id/-                                                                                                        President