BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No.261/2022 Filed on 29/06/2022

ORDER DATED:27/02/2024

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

          The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant ordered a Kodak 7X Pro 102cm Full HD LED Smart Amdroid TV through 1^st opposite party on 14/03/2022 for an amount of Rs.16,999/-.  The TV was delivered to the complainant on 19/03/2022 and on 21/03/2022                    a technician came to the complainant house & installed the TV.  But due to some problems in seeing the TV the complainant on 29/03/2022 registered a return request, but it was rejected.  After 2 weeks the TV became non working.  The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and a technician came to the complainant’s house for             four times for repairing the TV.  But the problem of the TV was not rectified by the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not providing any service to the product which was purchased by the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Even though the opposite parties 1& 2 received notice, the 2^nd opposite party did not appear before this Commission, hence 2^nd opposite party was set ex parte.  Notice issued to the 1^st opposite party was served and they appeared before this Commission, but they haven’t filed any version.     

                        Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 1 document which were marked as Exts.P1 & P1(a).  It can be seen from Ext.P1 that the complainant has purchased the television on 14/03/2022 for an amount of Rs.16,999/-.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 didn’t turn up, hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to repair the TV, but they haven’t done that.  From the documents 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 parties 1 &2, hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant. 

In the result the complainant is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable directed to pay Rs.16,999/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) and can take back the TV and also pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation for the 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 an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order 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 27^th  day of February,  2024.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 261/2022

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT