D.O.F:02/12/2022
D.O.O:30/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.295/2022
Dated this, the 30th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
M.V.Shilparaj,
Modavan Valappil (House),
Chembrakanam, : Complainant
Thimiri P.O,
Kasaragod- 671313
And
Appario Retail Private Ltd,
Renaissance Industrial Smart City,
Kalyan Sape Road,
Vashere Village, AmanePost, : Opposite Party
Bhiwandi Taluk,
Thane District, Thane,
Maharashtra – 421302
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 on the ground of service deficiency on the part of Opposite party.
The fact of the case in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased a security cardash camera, namely, “Campark Dash Cam Front and Rear Full HD DualDashboard Camera for cars with 3 inches screen Night Vision 170 wide angle G-sensor Loop Recording Parking Mode B07VD47GX8, from the opposite partythrough Amazon for Rs.4,200/-on 07.07.2020. The above product became defectiveand the same was reported to the opposite party on 02.03.2022 through e-mail.The complainant expressed his readiness to pay service charge, since the warrantyperiod was over. But the opposite party was not prepared to repair the product.Instead they told the complainant to contact the Chinese brand of the product.Accordingly the complainant contacted the Chinese brand through e- mail, but theyreplied to the effect that they didn’t sell such a product through Amazon. Thecomplainant submit that the opposite party failed to provide after sale service to theproduct they sold and therefore there is gross negligence and service deficiency ontheir part. Therefore the complainant sent notice dated 12.09.20222 to the oppositeparty, but there was no reply. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to theopposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation.
The notice sent to the opposite party returned with an endorsement “Refused”.Therefore their name was called and set ex parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documentsExt.A1 to A5 are marked. Ext A1 is the copy of invoice dated 07.07.2020, Ext.A2 isthe copy of request for repair to the OP dated 02.03.2022, Ext.A3 is the copy ofrequest for repair to the Chinese brand dated 16.03.2022, Ext A4 is the copy ofReply from the Chinese brand dated 02.03.2022, Ext.A5 is copy of the Notice12.09.2022.
Based on the pleadings the following issues are framed.
1.Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together. Here the specific case of the complainant is that the opposite party failed to provide after sale service to theproduct they sold and therefore there is gross negligence and service deficiency ontheir part. The complainant purchased a security car dash camera, namely, “Campark Dash Cam Front and Rear Full HD Dual Dashboard Camera for cars with 3inches screen Night Vision 170 wide angle G-sensor Loop Recording Parking ModeB07VD47GX8”, form the opposite party through Amazon for Rs.4,200/-on07.07.2020. The above product became defective and the same was reported to theopposite party on 02.03.2022 through e-mail. The complainant expressed hisreadiness to pay service charge, since the warranty period was over. But theopposite party was not prepared to repair the product. Instead they told thecomplainant to contact the Chinese brand of the product. The denial of after saleservice to the product sold by a product manufacturer amounts to negligence andservice deficiency.The complainant adduced oral and documentary evidence Ext.A1to A5 to prove his case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the absence of rebuttalevidence, this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part ofthe opposite party, due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships.
The complainant’s prayer is to direct the opposite party to direct the opposite partyto pay a total amount of Rs.25,000/- But the complainant did not produce evidenceto show that he had suffered loss of such a huge amount. The price of the product isRs.4,290/-. It was in working condition for more than 1 year. Therefore thiscommission is of the view that Rs.4,000/- will be a reasonable compensation in thiscase.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation cost.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/- Sd /- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Copy of invoice dated 07/07/2020
A2: Copy of request for repair dated 02/03/2022
A3: Copy of request for repair dated 16/05/2022
A4: Copy of request for repair dated 17/05/2022
A5: Copy of the notice dated 12/09/2022
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
