DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 06/12/2023

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 938/2023

COMPLAINANT

SatheeshBabu, Souparnika, Resident’s Lane, Near Akshaya Super Market, Edappally P.O., Kochi 682024.

(Rep. by Adv.s Salini N.C. & C. Radhakrishnan, RK Associates, Ground Floor, Chamminy Tower, 70/1554, Ernakulam 682017)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. The Managing Director, Arancia Kitchen Faber, White Field Associate, Door No. 70/2672B, Deshabhimani Junction, Kaloor 682017.
2. Sachin S., Arancia Kitchen Faber, White Field Associate, Door No. 70/2672B, Deshabhimani Junction, Kaloor 682017

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a dish washer apart other 3 items from the opposite party on 06/03/2023. The complainant states that the dish washer provided by the opposite party is an old model, upon delivery it became evident from the carton itself that the product was an old model, not the new model that was expected and booked for. The complainant had made numerous attempts to communicate with the opposite parties via mobile calls and e-mails seeking an explanation and a resolution to the matter. The complainant’s attempts were not answered properly by saying that the matter will be redressed after discussing with the owner who is presently out of station. The 2^nd opposite party salesman informed the complainant nothing regarding the arrival of the owner. The 2^nd opposite party also tried to neglect the complainant without attending the complainant’s phone calls and e-mails purposefully. Since the 2^nd opposite party was non-cooperative to replace the earlier model, with the latest one the complainant had sent a lawyer notice to the opposite parties. But there was no response received from the opposite party. Due to the lack of co-operation and refusal to address the issue resulted in much mental pain and agony to the complainant. The complainant states that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by the complainant.

The complainant states that deficiency in service and unfair trade practice occurred from the part of opposite party towards the complainant. The complainant also states that since the purchased product was an old model, the product is still not opened by the complainant. The complainant approached the Commission seeking redressal of his grievance and to direct the opposite party

1. To exchange the earlier model dishwasher with the latest version of the same model as per the agreed terms and specifications within a stipulated time frame.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the loss and damages suffered by the complainant due to the gross negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party
3. To direct the opposite party to pay compensation for the mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant along with cost of proceedings to the complainant.

2. Notice :

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 09/01/2024. The notice sent to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Hence treated as ‘deemed service’ and consequently opposite parties were set as ex-parte.

3. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A3 (series).

Heard the complainant.

4. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issues No. (1) and (2) together. Exbt. A1 is the copy of purchase bill dated 06/06/2023 for Rs.22,648/-, Exbt. A2 is the copy of the e-mail communications sent to the opposite party dated 06/07/2023 and 11/08/2023, Exbt. A3 series are the lawyer notices sent to the opposite party by the complainant.

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a new dishwasher apart from other 3 items from the opposite party on 06/06/2023 worth Rs.84,790/-. The complainant states that upon delivery it became evident from the carton itself that the dishwasher provided was an old model of 2021 and not the new model (2023 model). The complainant had made numerous attempts to resolve the issue. The complainant had sent e-mails dated 06/06/2023 and 11/08/2023 to the opposite party requesting to replace the old model with the new model. The complainant had also sent lawyer notice to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party which are returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Notice was also issued to the opposite parties from this Commission and the said notices were also returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. The complainant had filed proof affidavit in support of his arguments. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties conscious failure to accept the notice and to file their version amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The opposite parties have inadequately performed the desired service to the complainant which in turn has caused mental agony, pain etc. to the complainant.

Inspite of the e-mail communications and lawyer notices sent to the opposite parties they are not ready to replace the old model with the new model. The opposite parties are not ready to respond to the lawyer notices also. Based on the communications made by the complainant, we are of the opinion that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. The complainant has not used the dishwasher so far.

The above case is filed by the complainant for replacing the material or refund of the cost of the material and other expenses incurred by the complainant due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complainant had sent e-mail communications to the opposite party and had requested for replacement of the product with a new model.

The opposite parties conscious attempt to refuse the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. Here the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order cited2017 (4) CPR page 5901NC.

The opposite party has inadequately performed the service as agreed with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence and failure on the part of the opposite party in providing the desired service to the complainant which in turn has caused mental agony and hardships and financial loss to the complainant. We found issues No. (1) and (2) are in favour of the complainant for the deficiency in service that happened on the part of the opposite party.

Naturally the complainant has suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships and pain due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The opposite parties No. 1&2 are hereby directed to exchange the earlier model dishwasher FFSC6PR 125 Neo Black purchased by the complainant form the opposite party on 06/06/2023 with the latest version of the same model to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.
2. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency in service occurred from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant.
3. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of proceedings to the complainant.

The opposite parties are liable for the above mentioned directions. They must comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to do so, the amounts ordered in Point (2) and (3) above will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of June, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s evidence

Exbt. A1:    Copy of purchase bill dated 06/06/2023 for Rs.22,648/-

Exbt. A2:    Copy of the e-mail communications sent to the opposite party dated 06/07/2023 and 11/08/2023

Exbt. A3 series:     Lawyer notices sent to the opposite party by the complainant.

Opposite party’s evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 938/2023

Order Date: 27/06/2024