By Smt. PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
1.Case of the complainant.
On 04/01/2022 complainant approached opposite party No.1 for purchasing a mobile phone head set. As per the assurance given by opposite party No.1 regarding the quality and clarity of the head set, complainant purchased Boat Airdops 138 True wireless Ear buds head sets for an amount of Rs.1420/-. Opposite party No.1 provided the bill for the same. While using the head set, complainant experienced head ache and some head and ear discomfort.
2. On 07/01/2022 complainant informed this to opposite party No.1 through phone and opposite party advised the complainant to come to his shop on the next day with the bill provided by opposite party, the head set and box of the ear bud. On the very next day complainant approached opposite party and the head set was handed over to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party assured to the complainant that he will provide a new neck type head set on 10/01/2022.
3. But on that day opposite party No.1 was not ready to change the old head sets by providing a new one. Moreover he argued that, the box provided with the head set was damaged. But complainant was not used this head set even for a day, but he used only few hours. There is clear deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
4. Prayer of the complainant is that he is entitled to get Rs. 1420/- the cost of the head phone that he had already paid to opposite party No.1, he is also entitled to get Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, he had suffered and Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and notice served on them and they did not turn up. Hence opposite parties were set exparte.
6. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, he filed an affidavit in
lieu of Chief examination and he produced one document which is marked as Ext. A1. Ext.A1 is the copy of tax invoice given by opposite party No.1 to complainant.
7. The allegations against opposite parties are proved by the unchallenged evidence of complainant. There is no contra evidence in this matter. Moreover complainant produced one document which clearly shows that complainant had purchased the earphone on 04/01/2022. Being the marketing persons of the head set, opposite party No.2 also liable. Hence the Commission finds that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. Hence we allow this complaint holding that opposite parties are deficient in service.
8. We allow this complaint as follows:-
1.
- The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby caused mental agony, physical hardships and sufferings to the complainant.
- The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
If the above said amount is not paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the opposite parties are liable to pay the
interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount from the date of receipt of the copy of this order till realisation.
Dated this 13th day of July, 2022.
