BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 87/2024 Filed on 08/02/2024

ORDER DATED: 26/09/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

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 said notice was accepted by the opposite party on 09/05/2024 and failed to appear before this Commission.  Hence on 24/06/2024, the opposite party called absent and set ex pate.   
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant got a Panasonic Automatic Washing machine on 10/08/2021 as a part of a scheme introduced by Kunnil Hypermarket, Mannanthala.  The opposite party M/s.Hitech Services, Attingal is the authorized service center of Panasonic product.  On 03/08/2023 the washing machine had some problem and on reporting the same a technician of opposite party’s service center inspected the product and informed the complainant that, if the complainant is paying Rs.3,400/-, he will get an additional warranty for a period of two more years from that day i.e. from 03/08/2023.  The technician also informed that all the services including replacement of spare parts during that period will be done free of cost.  Accordingly the complainant paid Rs.3,400/- along with Rs.300/- being the inspection charge to the opposite party on 03/08/2023.  Hence the warranty is in force till 09/08/2025.  When the complainant registered a complaint through phone, the opposite party entered the complainant’s name as Monana Nair instead of Gopinathan Nair.  When this mistake was brought to the notice of the opposite party, they informed that there will be no problem due to that for getting the warranty services.  During the additional warranty period, once the technician attended the complainant and replaced one part free of cost.  But after one week from that repair, leakage of water started from the washing machine and again a technician inspected the product and promised to replace the required parts.  Subsequent to that no technician inspected the product to replace the part as promised.  Though the complainant frequently contacted the opposite party over phone, they avoid attending the phone and till the date of filing this complaint not provided the promised service.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The opposite party not appeared before this Commission and hence no version, affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite party.
4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.A1 & A2 from the side of the complainant.  The opposite party being declared ex parte there was no affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite party.    
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3. Order as to cost?

6. Heard, perused affidavits, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 & A2 were produced and marked.  Ext.A1 is the cash receipt issued by the opposite party for a sum of Rs.3,700/- being the amount collected from the complainant for providing additional warranty as well as the inspection charges.  Ext.A2 is the extended warranty contract.  Ext.A1 go to show that the complainant had paid Rs.3,400/- towards additional warranty charges and Rs.300/- as inspection charges to the opposite party on 03/08/2023.  Ext.A2 is the extended warranty contract issued by the opposite party.  In Ext.A2 the name of the customer is shown as Manana Nair.  According to the complainant this mistake was brought to the notice of the opposite party but they have neglected the same and informed that it will not any way affect the additional warranty services promised by the opposite party.  It is to be noted that the address contained in Ext.A2 is that of the complainant and the mobile number shown in the Ext.A2 extended warranty contract is also of the complaint.  So these two facts probabilises the allegations of the complainant that he has informed the opposite party with regard to the mistake crept in while entering the name of the customer, but they have informed that it will not affect the additional warranty services.  The opposite party being declared ex parte there is no evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.A1 & A2 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  From the available evidence it is also evident that the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony due to the act of the opposite party.  As the financial loss and mental agony were caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.         

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.

     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 Court, this the 26^th day of September,  2024.

87/2024

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

5. COURT EXHIBIT:

                        NIL