DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA .A, MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 29.12.2023.
CC/358/2023
Augustin Raj, Aged 35 years, - Complainant
S/o. Madhalamuthu,
10/721, Kongampara, Kozhipara PO,
Near James old church, Pudussery East,
Palakkad, Kerala-678 557.
(Party-in-Person)
VS
1. M/s.Flipkart Private Limited, -Opposite Parties
Building Alyssa,
Begonia and Clove Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli Village,
Bengaluru-560 103, Karanataka, India.
(By Adv.R.P.Sreenivasan)
(Ex-parte)
2. The Manager, M/s.Thomson TV,
Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd.
Office No.1106, 1107, 11th Floor,
Kailas Building, 23th Kasthurbha Gandhi Marg,
Connaught, New Delhi, Central Delhi-110 001.
(Ex-parte)
3. Manager Consulting Rooms Pvt. Ltd.,
No.254, 81 Srigandhada Kapalu,
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Sunkadhakatte,
Bangalore, Karnataka-560 091.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant purchased a Thomson TV IA series manufactured by the 2nd opposite party through the online platform of the 1st opposite party for Rs.15,999/-. The TV was delivered to the complainant on 29.09.2022 and installation was done by the service engineers of the 2nd opposite party on 02.10.2022. The complainant paid Rs.2,442/- to them for extended warranty of one more year.
The TV was developing frequent complaints and the service engineers could not rectify them inspite of their frequent efforts and changing the panel board. According to the complainant, this is due to manufacturing defect. Aggrieved by this, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking refund of the cost of TV, Rs.15,999/- along with a compensation of Rs.54,000/-.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st and the 2nd opposite parties though received the notice, did not file version within the statutory period. Hence, 1st and the 2nd opposite parties were set ex-parte. Notice to the 3rd opposite party was returned undelivered with endorsement “not known”. Though the complainant was directed to produce the e-mail ID of the 3rd opposite party, he did not produce the same.
3. The complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings of the case; Hence the case was taken for orders based on merit.
4. As per the Section 38(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ‘Every complaint shall be heard by District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record.’ In the present case, the complainant failed to fulfil this basic responsibility of filing his proof affidavit and marking the necessary documents as evidence. Further, he had been continuously absent through out the proceedings of the case since beginning. Further, it is not clear whether the opposite parties has redressed his grievance after receiving notice from this Commission.
5. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.
Pronounced in open court on this the 26th day of March, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.