O R D E R

Smt. K.P. Padmaree (Member – I):

                   Complainant Vijesh Kumar, Modiyil, Pramadom, Pathanamthitta filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:  Complainant is working in a private firm at Chennai and for that purpose he is residing there.  On 06.02.2015 complainant’s mother-in-law purchased LED TV (Haier) from the Karthika Home Appliances by giving Rs.32,500/- and it was gifted to the complainant.

                   3. Complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party which is the branch of the 1^st opposite party for sending the said T.V to Chennai.  2^nd opposite party had made believed the complainant that brokening items were carrying in wooden package and moreover all transporting items are having risk insurance coverage.  Believing it complainant entrusted the T.V to the office of the 2^nd opposite party on 25.02.2015 and remitted the charge.  After one week, on 02.03.2015 opposite party transferred the parcel to the complainant’s house at Chennai when the complainant opened the parcel there is no wooden package and the screen of the said T.V is broken.  Complainant informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party.  As per their request the complainant contacted the head office of 1^st opposite party and they informed that they are ready to pay the price of the T.V set.  2^nd opposite party informed that they will rectify the defect before December 2015.  But all are in vain complainant contacted both opposite parties several times through telephone and e-mail but there is no response from the opposite parties.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.

                   4. Hence this complaint for getting the price of the T.V with 12% from 25.02.2015 along with cost and compensation.

                   5. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.

                   6. On the basis of the pleadings in the complaint the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                   7. The evidence of this case consists of the proof affidavit and Exts.A1 and A2.  After closure of evidence, complainant was heard.

                   8. The Point:-  The allegation of the complainant is that he had entrusted a T.V set to the 1^st opposite party, who is the branch office of the 2^nd opposite party to sending the T.V set to Chennai.  After some days the parcel arrived at Chennai and screen of the T.V set is totally broken.  Matter was intimated to the opposite parties several times.  But there is no response from the opposite parties.  The above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and hence opposite parties are liable to the complainant.

                   9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2.  Ext.A1 is the receipt of Rs.1,050/- in the name of DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. issued by 1^st opposite party dated 25.02.2015.  Ext.A2 is the retail invoice of Rs.43,000/- dated 06.02.2015 issued by Karthika Home Appliances.

                   10. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 it is seen that the LED TV set was purchased on 06.02.2015 and it was entrusted to the 2^nd opposite party office on 25.02.2015.  According to the complainant, T.V screen was in broken condition when it was delivered to the complainant.

                   11. Since the opposite parties are exparte we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations of the complainant and hence the complainant’s case stands proved as unchallenged.  So we find that the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Therefore, this complaint is allowable.

                   12. In the result, this complaint is allowed thereby the opposite parties are directed to rectify the damage along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realise the cost of the T.V set Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) along with cost and compensation ordered herein above with 10% interest from the date of the order.

           Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2016.

                                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                                                        K.P. Padmasree,

                                                                                           (Member - I)

Sri. P.Satheesh Chandran Nair (President)  :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                  :  (Sd/-

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Vijeeshkumar. M.V 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Receipt dated 25.02.2015 for Rs.1,050/- in the name of DTDC

        Courier and Cargo Ltd. issued by 1^st opposite party. 

A2 :  Retail invoice dated 06.02.2015 for Rs.43,000/- issued by

        Karthika Home Appliances.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Vijeesh Kumar, Modiyil, Mallassery.P.O., Pramadom,

                    Pathanamthitta.

2. Manager, DTDC , 3/326, 1^st Floor, Kurisumoottil Plaza, Thiruvalla,
3. Shaji Salim, Manager/Proprietor, DTDC, Pathanamthitta.
4. The Stock File.