Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/50/2020

Kumar Gourav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Koryo World, Koryo - Opp.Party(s)

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-14-12-2020

Date of final hearing-02-03-2023

 Date of Order-02-03-2023

Case No. 50/2020

Kumar Gourav S/o Awadhesh Upadhyay

R/o Sector-1/B, Qr.no. 386, Bokaro Steel City

Vs.

1.  Koryo world, Koryo

Through BiG Bazar Future Retail Ltd.

Sector-3/C, Central Avenue Bokaro 827003

 

 Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. None turned up on behalf of complainant or O.P. on repeated call. It reveals from the record that this case is pending at the stage of argument in which complainant is absent since long therefore, in the given facts as per provision of Section 38 (3) (c) Consumer Protection Act. 2019 case has been taken up for decision on merit on the basis of materials available on record.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a washing machine from Big Bazar on 04.09.2019 on Rs. 7490/- with warranty of two years. Later on there was some complain in the washing machine hence on 21.09.2020 the technician of KORYO Service visited the house and repaired the machine but charged Rs. 800/- against the promise related to warranty of the goods and thereafter again machine became out of order hence inspite of repeated requests non attended and  sort out the problem and due to defects mother of the complainant developed skin problem thereafter having no alternate this case has been filed with prayer to direct the O.P. to make payment of Rs. 7490/- as price of the goods with interest @  of 12% and also to pay Rs. 45,000/- for different types of harassment and also to pay Rs. 15000/- as litigation cost.
3.  Inspite of due service of notice O.P. has not appeared nor W.S. has been filed hence vide order dt. 23.08.2022 case is being proceeded ex-parte against O.P.
4. To prove its case complainant has filed only the photo copy of cash memo, photo copy of warranty card, photo copy of invoice and photo copy of prescription dt. 06.11.2020. Except above mentioned papers there is no any other material on record to prove the facts of the complaint petition regarding defects in the goods sold out. So far, receiving of Rs. 800/- is concerned it appears that it is against purchase of item namely Kully.  In this way it is very much clear that complainant has not produced any material to show that the goods purchased by him was not in order during the warranty period. The manufacturer of the goods has also not been made party to this case. Therefore, we are of the view that complainant is not able to prove its case for grant of relief as prayed.
5. Accordingly this case is being dismissed with cost.

 

 

J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                  

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member