BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No.409/2023 Filed on 08/08/2023

ORDER DATED:30/01/2024

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

          The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that on 10/03/2021 the complainant bought a Mi TV from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs.28,998/-.  After 2 years of purchase a complaint regarding the TV was reported to 1^st opposite party by the complainant.  On registering the complaint they have allotted technician from Mi authorised service centre to check the complaint and the technician informed the complainant that the issue is regarding with the display panel of the TV and assured that they will replace the panel within 2 weeks.  But they have not taken any action to resolve the complaint of the television.  The complainant contacted the Mi service centre and they told that the 2^nd opposite party is not approving the display panel replacement estimate amount.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are not providing any service to the product sold to the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties 1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

Even though the opposite parties 1& 2 received notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 did not appear before this Commission, hence opposite parties 1 & 2 were set ex parte.  

                        Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts.A1 series to Ext.A3 series.  It can be seen from Ext.A1 that the complainant has purchased the television on 10/03/2021 for an amount of Rs.27,499/- and also it can be seen from Ext.A1(a) that the complainant has paid Rs.1,499/- for complete TV protection which is for 3 Years.  On going through Ext.A3 series it can be seen that the complainant has registered a complaint before opposite parties 1&2 on several times.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 didn’t turn up, hence the deposition of the complainant stands unshaken and there is nothing to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to repair the TV, but they haven’t done that.  From the documents produced by the complainant, we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case and there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties 1 &2, hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant. 

In the result the complainant is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till 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 Commission, this the 30^th  day of January,  2024.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

C.C. No. 409/2023

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT