Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/78/2021

Mohan V - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Retail Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN           : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

           SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

                                                  

CC.NO.78/2021 (Filed on : 08/02/2021)

ORDER DATED : 27/04/2023

COMPLAINANT

Mohan.V

Aswathy, SNRA-5, Peroorkkada,

Thiruvananthapuram-695005
(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Future Retail Ltd,

CDC-Trivandrum, Kalpana Heights,

(E-Zone) TC 1804, Kesavadasapuram,

Kalpana Heights, Pattom Palace.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala - 695004

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                  : PRESIDENT

1.This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party.

3.The case of the complainant in short is that he has purchased a 1 ton LG Inverter Air Conditioner from the opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.31,990/- (Rupees thirty one thousand nine hundred ninety only). The first two services of the air conditioner is to be done by the company at free of cost. But the opposite party has not made any arrangements for the service through the representatives of the manufacturing company. As there was no response with regard to the free service, the complainant contacted the opposite party and was informed that the concerned technical experts will visit and inspect the product and provide free service. But till April 2020 nobody has turned up for free service and hence the complainant contacted over phone and at that time it was informed that they are not in a position to come service due to the spread of Covid 19 Pandemic.  Subsequently in the month of October 2020, the air conditioner had some defects and it was not working. The complainant contacted the manufacturing company through phone and he received a message stating that only if the complainant cancels the already registered complaint with the company, then only the technical experts will provide service to the product. As the said proposition was not acceptable to the complainant, the complainant insisted that without providing service to the product he will not cancel the already registered complaint. Since then till the date of filing this complaint the dealer or the manufacturer has not informed anything in respect of the service and they have not co-operated with the complainant for curing the defect of the air conditioner. Again in the month of December 2020 the complainant registered another complaint with the opposite party  and in response to that complaint, the attitude of the opposite party towards the complainant was very disappointing. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances.

4.The opposite party filed written version contending that the complainant has suppressed facts and misrepresented the matter before this commission with a dishonest intention to make wrongful profit by misleading this commission to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party and caused damage to its reputation. The opposite party further contended that, the opposite party is in retail business and operating its outlets under the name Big Bazar across India and one among them is located in Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite party further contended that the LG is one among such manufacturer supplied their products to this opposite party for further sale of their products to the customers and the opposite party is doing only retailing of products being supplied by different manufacturers. The opposite party further contended that the complainant is intentionally filed this complaint only against the retail dealer ie this opposite party and not made the manufacturer of the product or the authorized service center of the manufacturer as parties to this complaint. According to the opposite party the manufacturer as well as the authorized service center are proper and necessary parties to this proceedings for a proper adjudication of the present case of the complainant. The opposite party further contended that it being a retailer who has sold the said product supplied by the manufacturer is not at all responsible for any of the claims made by the complainant. According to the opposite party there is no cause of action or bondafide in this complaint and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.  The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Order as to cost.

6.Heard. Perused records and documents. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant has not filed any affidavit or documents before this commission, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities for the same. Since 07/12/2021 this case is adjourned for proof affidavit of the complainant. As the complainant was continuously absent, this commission issued a notice to the complainant to appear before this commission on 31/08/2022 to further proceed with this complaint. On 31/08/2022 the complainant was present and the case was adjourned for filing proof affidavit of the complainant. Subsequent to that also the complainant was continuously absent and not filed affidavit. As the complainant failed to file proof affidavit or documents to prove his case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the case put forwarded by the complainant against the opposite party. In the absence of any piece of evidence to substantiate the claim made by the complainant, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed.

                  In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

        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 27^th day of April 2023.

 

 

                                                                               Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

                                                                                        Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

                                                                                         Sd/

                          VIJU.V.R        : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/