IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 24th day of August, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 72/2023 (Filed on 10/03/2023)
Petitioner : Joseph Thomas,
Vaniyapurackal,
Thrikodithanam P.O.
Pin - 686105
Vs.
Opposite party : One Pus Technology India
Private Limited,
UB City 24, Vittal Mallya Road,
K.G. Halli, D’ Souza Layour
Ashok Nayar, Bangalure KA 560001.
(Adv. Akhila Raju)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant purchased a One plus TV which is manufactured by the first opposite party from the online website on 7-8-2022. When the TV was delivered to the complainant the screen of the TV was in broken condition. The complainant on 25-9-22 and 19-11-22 lodged complaint through email. But there was no response from the opposite party. Hence this complaint if filed by the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.15,000/- which is the price of the TV along with a compensation of Rs,3,20,000/- along with Rs.5000/- as cost of this litigation.
After admission of the complaint, notice was duly served to the opposite party. Despite the receipt of notice from this Commission, the opposite party neither care to appear before the Commission nor to file version. Hence opposite party was declared as exparte.
The complainant was continuously absent since 17-5-2023. Inspite of receipt of notice from this Commission, the complainant did not turn up for adducing any oral evidence or to file proof affidavit. Hence the documents filed by the complainant along with complaint is marked as exhibit A1 to A6.
On evaluation of complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider that whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as prayed for proving deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
Point
The specific case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Plus TV YIS 32HD2A00 Black TV and when the TV was delivered to him it is found that the screen of the TV was broken. Exhibit A3 is the tax invoice issued by Mobitech Creations Pvt Ltd on 7-8-2022 for an amount of Rs.14,999/- being the price of the TV. Exhibit A1 is the complaint lodged by the complainant with the customer care of one plus stating that they have not resolved the complaint lodged with them on 25-9-2022 and 19-11-2022. However, on a mere reading of exhibit A1 we cannot see anything about the details of the complaint alleged to be lodged by the complainant on aforesaid dates. Though the complainant alleged that at the time of delivery of the TV it was in damaged condition he did not adduce any evidence to prove the same.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent Judgment dtd.6th October 2021 i.e., in “SGS India Limited v/s Dolphin International Limited”, categorically held that the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. Here in this case as discussed above we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 24th day of August, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of e-mail communication dtd.22/11/22 by Dr. Shibu Pathickattil to
opposite party
A2 – Copy of picture of damaged tv
A3 – Copy of invoice dtd.07/08/2022
A4 – Copy of email communication dtd.19/11/2022 to Jessica Augustine
A5 – Copy of email communication dtd.25/09/22 to Jessica Augustine
A6- Copy of e-mail communication dtd.17/12/2022 by opposite party to Jestine
George
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
