DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 29^th day of November 2024

Filed on: 01.03.2021

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                          Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

C.C. No 111 of 2021

Complainant

 Sreenath K.S, S/o Shaji K.R aged 32 years, residing at Kulathanal House, Kidangoor P.O. Vengoor, Aluva Taluk, Angamaly Village, Angamaly, Ernakulam District, Pin-683572, Ph: 9496333994

(Complainant rep. by. Adv. Kabil Chandran T, Advocate, Room No. B1, Ittoop Tower, Kombara Junction, Kochi, Pin-682 018.)

VS

Opposite Party

Parts Big Boss Limited, A 10/14, Phase 3, Meerut Road Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, Pin: 201003

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a lawyer uses his mother’s Maruti 800 DX (1999 model) for daily transportation. On February 17, 2021, he contacted the opposite party, Parts Big Boss, an online seller of automobile spare parts, regarding a carburettor for his vehicle. Following a conversation with a representative of the opposite party, who assured the product's availability and quality, the complainant placed an order through their website, priced at Rs 6434, with an advance payment of 10% (Rs 585) as per the representative’s instructions. The representative insisted that this advance payment was necessary for delivery processing, with the balance due upon receipt.

Despite the assurance of delivery within 6–8 days, the spare part was not delivered. After several failed attempts to contact the opposite party, the complainant sent an email on February 23, 2021, requesting a cancellation and refund of the advance payment, but received no response.

The complainant, having only this vehicle, has incurred substantial expenses, paying Rs 1500 daily for private taxis to travel to work due to the unavailability of the part. He alleges that the opposite party’s negligence and failure to fulfil the order have caused significant mental and financial distress. He seeks justice from the Commission for the opposite party’s unfair trade practices.

The complainant requests the Commission to direct the opposite party to either deliver the part promptly or refund the advance payment along with compensation for financial losses, mental anguish, and daily travel expenses incurred.

2. Notice:

The Commission sent a notice to the opposite party, which was not returned. The complainant was informed to furnish the correct addresses of the opposite party but failed to respond or provide the correct address.

3. Evidence

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but produced five  documents along with the complaint before the commission.

1. Email sent from
2. Email confirming order sent from  
3. Payment request email from
4. Email sent from
5. Bank Statement of Axis Account No. 912010059044542 for the period from 01.02.2021 to 27.02.2021.

4. Legal Analysis and Observations:

The principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" (hear the other side) mandates that each party be given a fair opportunity to present their case. In this context, the Commission's request for the correct address of the opposite party aligns with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the opposite party is properly notified and given a chance to present their side.

5. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, defines 'deficiency' as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance required by law. In this case, the complainant alleged that the opposite party's non-delivery of the spare part prima facie indicates a deficiency in service. The commission directed the registry to notify the complainant on April 4, 2024, and July 23, 2024, to appear and provide the correct address of the opposite party. However, the complainant’s continued absence and failure to supply this information left the commission with no choice but to dismiss the complaint.

Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the complainant has neither provided the necessary information nor attended any hearings, suggesting a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The complainant’s absence from hearings between June 13, 2022, and October 29, 2024, further underscores this disinterest.

Conclusion:

In light of the complainant's consistent absences and failure to submit the required addresses, it is clear they are not interested in advancing the case. The commission concludes that, despite ample opportunity, the complainant has not taken the necessary steps to support their complaint.

ORDER:

Consequently, this complaint is hereby dismissed due to the complainant's non-compliance. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 29^th day of November , 2024.

 Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran,  Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

nil

Opposite Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 111/2021

Date:29/11/2024