D.O.F:05/07/2021

                                                                                                  D.O.O:10/08/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

CC.No.116/2021

Dated this, the 10^th  day of August 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Kumaran

S/o Achu (Late)

R/at. Ayyappa Nagar

Kelugudde, Kudlu Post

Kasaragod Taluk – 671124                                    : Complainant

And

The proprietor

MaMe, Baby Mall

Pregnancy and baby Centre

High Street Building,                                               : Opposite Party

Moulavi Book Stall, Old Bus stand

Kasaragod - 671121

                             ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G: MEMBER

     The facts of the case is that complainant had purchased a new cradle from the opposite party on 04/06/2011 for Rs. 2983/-.  Due to the damage of the cradle the complainant is not in a position to use the cradle and has returned it on 05/06/2011.    The Opposite party promised to give a new cradle within one week .  After one week when the complainant approached the Opposite party he was not willing to give a new cradle then.  The complainant demanded for the return of the price of the cradle but Opposite party was not ready.  The complainant approached the Opposite party several times either to get the price of the cradle or to get a new cradle.  But Opposite Party was not willing to comply the demand for.  There is a gross negligence on the part of the Opposite party due to which complainant sustained mental agony physical strain and loss.   The complainant is claiming refund of the price of the cradle with compensation and cost.

     Notice to Opposite party served Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  According to Opposite party the complaint is false frivouls and liable to be dismissed.   The opposite Party admitted that the complainant had purchased a cradle from Opposite party after satisfying fully its model and quality.  The Opposite party again admitted that cradle is returned due to defect.  The complainant informed Opposite party to purchase other item equivalent to the value of the said cradle.  But the complainant did not collect any other item from the shop of Opposite party.  According to Opposite party actually the complainant insulted and cheated Opposite party.  He himself selected the cradle after verifying it.  The Opposite Party utterly denied that the complainant returned the same due to damage.  The reasons stated by complainant is that the mother of the child is not happy with the model purchased.  From the very contact of the complainant Opposite party apprehends that the intention of the complainant is to harass the Opposite party.  The Complainant is trying to misuse the CP Act and rules for undue gain amount.  The Opposite party denied that there is gross negligence on the part of opposite party.   The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as he prayed in the complaint.  The complaint may be dismissed with cost.

     Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A3.  The Pw-1 was not cross examined.

The issues raised for the consideration as

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to relief?
3. If so what is the relief?

    For convenience issue No 1 to 3 can be discussed together.

    The grievance of the complainant is that he purchased a cradle from Opposite party for Rs. 2983/- on 04/06/2021.  Due to the damage complainant is not in a position and retuned it on 05/06/2021. The Opposite party promised the complainant to come to the next week for the new cradle, but after one week Opposite party evaded from his promise Ext A1 is the visiting card of the Opposite party, Ext A2 is the invoice of the Opposite party Dt : 04/06/2021, Ext A3 is the purchase coupon of Opposite party. No cross recorded.

    The documents produced by the complainant proves that the case of the complainant is true.  Ext A3 proves that purchased a cradle from Opposite party on 04/06/2021 and Opposite party in their complaint counter admitted that due to the damage the cradle is returned on the next day itself and Opposite party offered to give a new cradle to the complainant .  The Opposite party had not taken any steps to prove that he had given a new cradle to the complainant as promised earlier.  In the absence of rebuttal evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite party which caused loss and mental agony to the complainant .The Opposite party is liable to compensate the loss and agony sustained to the complainant.  Therefore the complaint is allowed directing Opposite party to refund the price of the cradle with compensation and cost.

      Therefore complaint is allowed directing Opposite party to refund the price of the cradle Rs. 2983/- along with Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost.

   The time for compliance is the 30 days from the receipt of copy of this judgement.

       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                          Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Visiting card

A2- Invoice

A3 – Purchase coupon   

      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                         Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/