ORDER

11.11.2024

SH. RAJESH, MEMBER

1. Present complaint has been filed by complainant seeking direction to OP to refund the price of allegedly defective goggle amounting to Rs. 600/- to complainant along with interest, cost and compensation.
2. It is stated in the complaint of complainant that on 30.11.2019 the complainant purchased a pair of goggle for a sum of Rs. 600/- from OP.
3. It is stated that after using the goggle, he couldn’t clearly see and problem started in his eye sight and he developed headache.
4. It is stated that the complainant visited OP on 05.12.2019 and requested to rectify the defect in the product or replace the same which was straightaway denied by OP. Complainant also requested to provide a bill against the purchase of the said goggle but same was also denied by OP. 
5. Complainant has approached before this Commission by way of present complaint seeking refund of the cost of alleged defective product with interest, cost and compensation.  
6. Notice was issued to OP. Despite due service OP neither appeared nor filed Written Statement within statutory period, hence OP was proceeded Ex Parte vide order dated 09.01.2023. 
7. In order to substantiate allegations made in the complaint the complainant has also filed a notarized documents with stamp paper incorporating heading as ‘Evidence” contending same to be his Ex – Parte Evidence by way of affidavit reaffirming the averments made in the complaint. Complainant has also filed job card issued by OP showing details of product purchased dated 05.12.2019 Exb CW1/1.
8. We have perused the record available with us and heard the complainant in person.
9. Complainant has filed on record card issued by OP showing details of product purchased dated 05.12.2019 dated 05.12.2019 in respect of subject matter of the case i.e. goggle. 
10. The complainant has not pleaded what was the nature of defect in the said google.  No expert report has been filed to prove that google purchased by complainant was defective one or was not fit for complainant despite eye testing conducted upon him. No medical report has been filed by complainant showing progression of myopia or headache suffered by complainant.  
11. By way of present complaint filed after approximately one and half year the Complainant has alleged defect in the goggle purchased by him and therefore has sought refund of price of same.
12. The notarized documents with a heading as ‘Evidence” contending same to be Ex – Parte Evidence by way of affidavit by complainant doesn’t bear any ‘oath’ by complainant, therefore same cannot be treated as “Evidence by way of affidavit” as such the present complaint is without any evidence.
13. This is also not the case of the Complainant that he had to purchase another set of goggle as the OP failed to rectify or replace the same. 
14. After considering the submissions and evidence on record, we are of the considered view that by not pleading details of defects in product in question the complainant has failed to establish any defect in the product in question as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed. 
15. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.

Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 11.11.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                                RAJESH

PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER