Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/92/2021

Shabeer Khan B - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD ,Globel furniture and home appliances - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                                 SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN          : PRESIDENT

                                 SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR       : MEMBER

                                 SRI.VIJU.V.R                       : MEMBER

CC.NO.92/2021 (Filed on : 19.02.2021)

ORDER DATED : 29.04.2022

 

COMPLAINANT

Shabeerkhan.B

Dharul Aman, Pariyaram,

Vengode.P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 028

 

(Party in person)

 

                                                     VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The Managing Director,

Sony Global Furniture & Home Appliances,

Near Pazhakutty Petrol Pump,

Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                : PRESIDENT

                       1.      This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

                   2.       The case of the complainant in short is that on 05.12.2020 he has purchased an LED TV from the opposite party by paying Rs.37,500/- to the opposite party. The said product was having five years replace warranty. After purchase of the TV within a week the complainant has noticed some defects in the functioning of the TV. The main problem is that the TV will switch off automatically while functioning and after some time it will be on automatically. This complaint was informed to the opposite party but they have not properly responded to the complainant. Hence the complainant took the TV to the shop of the opposite party and explained the defects to the opposite party. But the opposite party returned back the TV stating that it has got no defects and they can consider the complaint of the complainant only if the complainant is able to establish that the alleged defect is exists in the TV. Subsequently the complainant took back the TV to his residence and automatically switch off and switch on of the TV was video recorded through his mobile phone and that was also brought to the notice of the opposite party along with that video, the TV was also brought to the shop of the opposite party and the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the same with a fresh piece. At the time of handing over the TV, at the instance of the complainant the opposite party was forced to issue a receipt to the complainant. At that time, the opposite party collected the warranty card from the complainant saying that the same is required for showing it to the company authorities. Subsequent to that, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, the opposite party failed to replace the TV with a new one. Moreover, whenever the complainant approached the opposite party over phone, there was no proper response from the opposite party. According to the complainant, he has purchased the above referred TV for the educational purpose of his two children. The indifferent attitude of the opposite party caused much inconvenience and difficulties to the complainant who is working in a private firm. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The notice issued from this Commission was accepted by the opposite party, but failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for the appearance of the opposite party or on the subsequent dates. Hence on 23.10.2021 the opposite party was called absent and set exparte by this Commission.

          3.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite party.    

Points to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. If so what is the relief and costs?

4.       Heard. Perused documents and affidavit. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 were produced and marked. Ext.P1 is the Copy of the bill for the purchase of the TV. Ext.P2 is copy of the ledger for registering the complaint. Ext.P3 is the copy of receipt. Ext.P4 is the copy of the video recordings. As the opposite party was declared exparte there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discard the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged and hence we accepted the evidence adduced by the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.P1 to P4 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case put forward against the opposite party. We further find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.37,500/- with 6% interest from 05.12.2020 and Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2500/- towards cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount expect cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization. 

              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 Forum, this the 29^{th day} of April 2022.

 

                                                                              Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                        Sd/-

PREETHA G NAIR   : MEMBER

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

VIJU.V.R   : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.92/2021

 

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Shabeerkhan

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Copy of the bill for the purchase of the TV

Ext.P2                   - Copy of the ledger for registering the complaint

Ext.P3                   - Copy of receipt

Ext.P4                   - Copy of the video recordings

List of witness for the opposite party - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite party           - NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL

 COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

CC.NO.92/2021

ORDER DATED : 29.04.2022