DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  29^th   day of November, 2022

Present      :    Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                        

                  :   Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 06/11/2020    

                         CC/144/2020

Jithin C.,

S/o.Chandran,

Residing at Malayarikath House,

Varode Post,

Ottapalam, Palakkad – 679 102                                 -                      Complainant

(Party in person)

                                                                                      Vs

1. ARS Computers,

Room No.8, Moopan Complex,

RS Road, Palakkad – 678 001

2. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
6.  

Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001-Opposite parties

(OP 1 by Adv.Manoj Ambat

OP2 by Adv.Manimangalath Sameer Babu)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant herein is aggrieved by the damage allegedly  sustained by a monitor purchased by him from the 1^st opposite party dealer and manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party manufacturer.   
2. Complaint pleading is that the complainant purchased a Samsung monitor from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.15,500/- on 8/8/2020 with a warranty for 2 years from the date of purchase. After two months the monitor started showing display complaints.  The technicians of the opposite parties informed that rectifications would cost Rs.10,000/-. The complainant is aggrieved by the conduct of the opposite parties  whereby they have sought for consideration for carrying out repairs even while the monitor was within warranty period. 
3. Both opposite parties filed version in similar vein that the complaint suffered by the monitor was “broken panel” which was caused by an external impact and attributable to the complainant. They claimed that such damage was not covered under the warranty terms and conditions.
4.  From a reading of the pleadings the following issues arising for consideration:

1.   Whether the complainant has proved that the damage to the monitor was covered under warranty?  

2.   Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

3.    Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

4.    Any other reliefs ?

5.         Evidence comprised of proof affidavit of complainant and Exhibits A1 & A2.  OP1 filed proof affidavit.  OP2 filed proof affidavit after evidence was closed. Since the opposite party 2 had not sought for reopening of evidence their proof affidavit was rejected.

            Issue No. 1

6.         It is the clear case of the complainant that within 2 months of purchase the monitor started showing complaints. There was no external damage what so ever. The opposite parties repudiated the complaint pleadings alleging that the damages were attributable to external impact.

7.         Evidence on the part of the complainant comprises of two documents. The tax invoice and a call report, both issued by the  first opposite party. As per Ext.A2 the damage is shown as “display damage”. Even though it is written “warranty”, what is meant by that is not clear. In all probability it means that the monitor is under warranty. There is no other evidence for the complainant.

8.         Be as it may, it is well established that when once the opposite parties had repudiated complaint pleadings, it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove his case by cogent evidence. Even after the opposite parties had denied the complaint claims, the complainant had not taken out an expert commissioner to adduce proper evidence to show that the damage suffered by the monitor was damage attributable to the manufacturer. It is also important to note that there are no circumstantial evidences also in this case to come to a conclusion as to the nature of damage suffered or to criminate the opposite parties.   

9.         In view of the absence of any evidence to prove the nature of the damages sustained by the monitor, this complaint is dismissed.

            Issue no. 2.

10.       Relying on the finding above, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any   deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties.

            Issue Nos. 3&4

11.       Resultantly,  the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                        Pronounced in open court on this the 29^th   day of November, 2022.                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

    Vidya.A

                       Member        

                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1  -   Original Tax invoice dated 8/8/2020

Ext.A2  -   TRC Call Report dated 12/10/2020 

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   Nil

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.