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. 178/2022  Filed on 17/05/2022

ORDER DATED: 17/08/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. 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.  Though the notice issued from this Commission was accepted by the opposite party, the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for the appearance of the opposite party and hence the opposite party was called absent and set ex parte.  The case of the complainant in short is that on 12/12/2020 the complainant purchased a washing machine from the opposite party.  At the time of purchase the opposite party informed that this product is having 2 years total warranty and 10 years motor warranty.  After one year from the date of purchase, the washing machine had some defect and the complainant registered a complaint with the opposite party.  Subsequent to that after few days the technician of the opposite party came to the residence of the complainant and inspected the washing machine and informed the complaint that the machine, drum parts are having some defects and hence the same to be replaced for which the washing machine is to be transported to the service centre at Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram.  The technician also informed the complainant that the complainant has to bear the transporting charge and loading and unloading expenses.  The technician further submitted that the parts are not readily available and the same has to be obtained by placing order.  The technician took the photographs of the washing machine, warranty card and the bill.  As the complainant informed these aspects to the showroom of the opposite party, the opposite party informed the complainant that the product is having only one year’s warranty and subsequent to that only parts are covered by warranty.  The complainant submitted that this information were not disclosed to the complainant by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the product.  The warranty card or the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant also does not disclose these aspects.  When the complainant contacted the service centre, the head of the service centre namely Radhkrishnan informed the complainant that the parts were not received and hence it will take 2 weeks in one month for the repairing of the washing machine.  At that time the complainant informed Mr.Radhakrishnan that it is difficult for complainant to wait for a period of one month for repairing the washing machine.  Then the said Radhkrishnan asked  the complainant to contact some other technician to rectify the defects and accordingly the complainant took the washing machine to another technician and the defect was temporally rectified by the said technician.  For the said repair work the complainant has incurred an amount of Rs.5000/- towards expenses.  According to the complainant even after 3 months from the date of registering the complaint, the opposite party failed to give proper service to the complainant and hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing her grievances.
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.
4. 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.  
4. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused records and affidavit.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant herself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were produced and marked.  Ext.A1 is the tax invoice for Rs.26,190/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A3 series are the photographs of the washing machine purchased by the complainant from opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the retail invoice in respect of Sony digital Camera purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.  Ext.A5 is the warranty card issued by the complainant in respect of a Sony Camera purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.  As the opposite party was declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by which the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by making Ext.A1 to A3, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing her case against the opposite party.  As mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed infavour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- towards 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 17^th day of August,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 178/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

      Sd/-

                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT