BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 183/2021 Filed on 28/04/2021

ORDER DATED:  19/11/2022

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Forum under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a rectifier on 08/03/2021 from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,120/-.  But when the product was taken to the workshop it was found to be useless.  When the complainant told about this think to the opposite party, they assured that they will replace the product as and when new stock arrives.  But till now the opposite party has not replaced the damaged product nor refunded the amount.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  The opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased a rectifier from their shop on 08/03/2021.  But the complainant attempted to return the product after three days from the date of purchase.  As per company policy ‘Goods once sold will not be taken back’ and the same is really mentioned in their invoices and in their shopping counters.  The complainant took around an hour and made a few phone calls before purchasing the product.  Under the directive of manufacturer, returns and refunds of electrical and electronics components of two wheeler is not permitted once the product is assembled and/ electric current is passed through.  The complainant wanted to return the product and demanded refund after three days from the date of purchase saying that some other component of his vehicle was faulty and not the one which was purchased from the opposite party.  The product which the complainant brought back was clearly used as the seal of the box was broken and item has grease on them.  When the opposite party refused to take back the product he started accusing the opposite party.  The opposite party asked the complainant to contact the manufacturer as the complainant alleges manufacturing defects but the complainant refused to contact the manufacturer and demanded refund of full amount form the opposite party.  The opposite party is only a trader and not a manufacturer.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed.

Issues to be ascertained:

(i). Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from

     the side of opposite party?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues No.(i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced one document which was marked as Ext.A1.It can be seen from Ext.A1 that the complainant has purchased RR unit from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,120/-. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had purchased the product from them.  Even though the opposite party has filed version they have not filed proof affidavit nor produced any evidence to prove their case, hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evident putforth by the complainant.  From the document produced by the complainant we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party.  Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. 

In the result complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,120/- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Only) to the complainant and pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 19^th  day of November,  2022.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

C.C. No. 183/2021

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R