DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB          : PRESIDENT

Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) :  MEMBER

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 19^th day of April 2023

C.C.277/2022

Complainant

Jisha,

Mundakasseri Tharayil,

Guruvayoorappan College (P.O)

Kozhikode-673 014.

Opposite Party

My G Future,

Door No:28/3856

Pottammal Junction

Kozhikode – 673 017.

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT 

           This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

      The complainant purchased an ACER Tab from the opposite party on 24-08-2021 for the use of her daughter for studies. It was represented by the opposite party that the tab is having one year warranty. But during the warranty period, the tab began to show complaints and on approaching the opposite party, she was directed to GVG Computers Kozhikode, which is the service centre. The complaint was with regard to the display. After repairs, a sum of Rs.4,000/- collected from her for replacement of the display stating that the same is not covered under the warranty. Hence the complaint for refund of Rs.4,000/- along with compensation and cost of the proceedings.

3. The opposite party was set ex-parte.
4. The points that arise for determination in this case are :

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, as alleged ?
2. Reliefs and costs.

5. Point No.1 :  The opposite party was set as ex-parte. The case was posted for evidence of the complainant several times. But the complainant also remained absent and did not file affidavit or adduce any evidence.  The fact that the opposite party was set ex-parte does not automatically entitles the complainant to get the relief sought for. It is for the complainant to prove the allegations in the complaint by adducing proper evidence. But the complainant in this case has utterly failed to prove his case. No deficiency of service or unfair trade practice as alleged is proved against the opposite party.
6. Point No.2 :  In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for and the complaint is only  to be dismissed. 

In the result, CC 277/2022 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this the 19^th day of April, 2023.

Date of Filing: 26-10-2022.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MEMBER

Sd/-

MEMBER

​

Forwarded/ By Order

                                                                                                                                                                                                         Sd/-

Assistant Registrar