DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Tuesday the 28th day of February 2023
C.C.284/2022
Complainant
Najwa Suhra,
Rep by Grand Father Assan Koya,
Valiyakath (H),
Mini Bypass Road, Mankavu (PO),
Kozhikode-673 007.
Opposite Party
Lens Kart,
Mini Bypass Road, Mankavu
Kozhikode -673 007.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is represented by her grandfather. On 31-05-2022 spectacles was purchased from the opposite party shop paying Rs.5,639/-. After a few days, the frame became defective and so the vision was not clear. There was 2 year warranty for the product. Insurance coverage was also there. The opposite party refused replacement or repair of the same. Hence the complaint for replacement of the spectacles or refund of the price.
3. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are :
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of
the opposite party, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- The grandfather of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext A1 was marked.
- Heard.
- Point No.1 – The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The specific allegation is that the opposite party failed to replace the spectacles or repair the same during the warranty period.
- PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. It is averred in the proof affidavit that the frame of the spectacles purchased for his granddaughter became defective within a few days and the opposite party neglected to take any steps to redress the grievance in spite of reporting the complaint. Ext A1 is the copy of the order summarywhich shows that the price of the product is Rs.5,639.82/-
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite party has not turned up to file version. The opposite party has not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the document produced and marked by the complainant. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Ext A1. Gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party is established and proved. The opposite party is liable to replace the frame of the spectacles with a new one. Undoubtedly, the act of the opposite party has resulted in mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
- Point No.2 : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 284/2022 is allowed in part.
- The opposite party is hereby directed to replace the frame
of the spectacles with a new one.
- The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-
(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation to the
complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience.
- The order shall be complied with within in 30 days of the
receipt of copy of this order.
- No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 28th day of February 2023.
Date of Filing: 28/10/2022
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 –Order Summary dated 31-05-2022.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 –Assan Koya.
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Forwarded/ By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
