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. 315/2020  Filed on 31/12/2020

ORDER DATED: 28/04/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT: 

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:

1. The case of the complaint in short is that the complainant purchased European closet from the 1^st opposite party on 15/03/2020 by paying Rs.11,740/- and the same was fixed at the ground floor of the complainant’s residence by a licensed plumber.  The item was purchased and fixed at the ground floor for the use of the complainant’s aged mother who is having multiple ailments including disc prolapse.  Even before 1^st use, it was found that the product was defective one and water was leaking through screw hole and not able to be stored in flush tank.  Immediately the matter was reported to the 2^nd opposite party company in consultation with the 1^st opposite party dealer.  Subsequently, after so much pursuing, the company appointed a technician who visited the complainant’s house and reported for replace of the unit.  After the technician’s report, the complainant was constantly in touch with the opposite parties but both the opposite parties tried to prolong the matter by saying that the product has to come from the factory outside the state for the purpose of replacing the same.  Inspite of repeated request and demands made by the complainant, the opposite party failed to respond to the reasonable demand made by the complainant which was agreed up by the opposite party in principle. According to the complainant he and his family members suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  
2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and the same was received by them.  As the 1^st opposite party not appeared before this Commission on the date fixed for appearance, this Commission on 09/02/2021declerd the 1^st opposite party as ex parte.  On that day 2^nd opposite party was present and sought time for version.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before this Commission or file in written version and hence on 18/12/2021 this Commission declared the 2^nd opposite party also as ex parte.
3. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant.  The opposite parties being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the opposite parties.            
4. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the

     part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the complaint?
3. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused records and affidavit. In order to establish the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of GST invoice dated 15/03/2020.  Ext.P2 is the copy of technical service call report dated 15/06/2020.  Ext.P3 is the copy of E-mail dated 22/11/2020.  As there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallenged.  By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by producing and marking Ext.P1 to P3, we find that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case against the opposite parties.  We further find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties by which the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.  In view of the above discussion, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed.    

                             6. In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.11,740/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Only) with 6% interest from 15/03/2020 to the complainant.  Apart from that the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the 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% p.a 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 28^th  day of April,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 315/2020

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:   NIL

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT