A-1542/2023

21-09-2023

ORDER ON ADMISSION

BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Commission, Mysuru in complaint No.340/2022 which dismissed the complaint and submits that the complainant had filed a complaint against the Opposite Party/Respondent alleging deficiency in service in not repairing the mobile handset, hence prayed for refund of the entire amount paid towards the purchase of the mobile along with 18% interest per annum.

2. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint as lack of valid documents. In fact, this complainant had purchased the mobile handset by paying an amount of Rs.1,100/-  and noticed the some defects in the mobile handset, whenever before tendered the respondent had not repaired the mobile handset and he was not able to use the same, subsequently the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and sought for refund of the entire amount. The District Commission inspite of production of the documents dismissed the complaint for reasons that the invoice stands in the name of one Satish and payment also made through Goggle pay and this complainant has no locus standi to claim the refund, hence rejected the complaint.  The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law. Xerox copy of the receipt also produced to show that he had purchased the said mobile handset, merely there is no signature of the customer and authorized person. The District Commission cannot be rejected the claim made by the complainant, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

3. Heard on admission.

4. On perusal of the certified copy of the order memorandum of appeal, the complainant had not brought the complaint before the District Commission with proper documents, in order to establish any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. The complainant basically needs to provide required documents and authenticated materials to establish deficiency in service. The invoice itself is not in support of complainant allegations.  The invoice stands in the name of one Satish and the same was person had paid an amount of Rs.1,100/-through Goggle pay. The complainant has not produced any receipt stands in his name. The District Commission after considering the said facts dismissed the complaint. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law; we do not find any irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission, accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-  

O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.

Member                                                      Judicial Member

Jrk/-