IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 176/2023 (Filed on 09-06-2023)
Complainant : T. Anilkumar,
Therttumattom House,
Collectorate P.O.
Kottayama – 2.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : Oppo India Pvt. Ltd.
Unicom Mobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Service Centre,
Near Darshana Academy,
Sastri Road, Kottayam – 686001.
(Adv. George Vinu Jose and
Adv. Namita Philson)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Upon receipt of notice from this Commission though opposite party appeared before the Commission they did not file the version within statutory period. Hence opposite party set exparte.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased Oppo- Reno7 8/256-HSN-85171300 mobile phone from Sankara Ayyer shop which is manufactured by opposite party by paying Rs.28,999/-. When he updated the software, the display of the phone became defective. Though the complainant approached the service centre of the opposite party they did not rectify the defects stating that the warranty is over. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievance. The complainant has not filed any affidavit or documents. It is found that though the complainant has raised allegations against the opposite parties, he has not adduced any evidence by way of affidavit or documents to substantiate his case against the opposite parties, despite giving party sufficient opportunities. As the complainant was continuously absent, notice was issued from this Commission to the complainant to appear before this Commission on 28-12- 2023 and 13/3/24. The notices were duly served to the Complainant. As the complainant has not filed an affidavit or documents to substantiate his allegations, we find that the complainant miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties. In the above circumstances, we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
By Order
Assistant Registrar
