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. 265/2022 Filed on 01/07/2022

ORDER DATED: 10/11/2022

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. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party accepted the notice on 11/07/2022.  As the opposite party not appeared before this Commission as directed, on 26/08/2022 the opposite party was declared ex parte by this Commission.
2. The case of the complaint in short is that when complainant’s brother was admitted in RCC, Thiruvananthapuram for treatment, the complainant placed order for cloth materials worth Rs.2,150/- with the opposite party which includes courier charge also.  The complainant has given the present address at Thiruvananthapruam while placed order with opposite party.  Even after one week as there was no response from the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party and the opposite party stated that due to rain, courier number couldn’t be traced out and requested the complainant to contact S.T. courier and Express courier.  Accordingly the complainant contacted these two courier establishments through their Thiruvananthapuram branch.  Though the complainant contacted these two courier establishments, for a period of 3 weeks, they have informed that without tracking number it is impossible to trace out the articles.  Then again the complainant contacted the opposite party on 03/06/2022 and the opposite party requested the complainant to contact Trakon currier service and accordingly the complainant contacted them also.  From the side Trakon courier service, it was informed that the parcel was returned and the same will be reaching the centre within 4 days.  Subsequent to that also the complainant contacted the opposite party over phone and demanded Rs.2,150/-, the amount already paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  Whenever the complainant contacted the opposite party they will postpone by saying one or the other reasons.  According to the complainant the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the attitude of the opposite party the complainant has suffered mental and financial loss and for redressing his grievances, the complainant approached this Commission.                
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1, Ext.P1 to P3 from the side of the complainant.    The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party. 
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
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused records and affidavit.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P3 were produced and marked on the side of the complainant.  Ext.P1 is the copy of Address and other details of opposite party.  Ext.P2 is the copy of QR Code of the complainant.  Ext.P3 is the copy of online transaction Rs.2,150/-.   As the opposite party was declared ex parte there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Ext.P1 shows the address and other details of opposite party.  Ext.P2 shows that the QR Code of the opposite party.  Ext.P3 shows the payment of Rs.2,150/- through online transaction by the complainant to the opposite party.  The perusal of Ext.P1 to P3 will go to show that the complainant has succeeded in proving the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  Hence we accepted the evidence adduced by the complainant.  We find that by swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P3 the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party.  From the available evidence before this Commission we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  We further find that due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant suffered mental agony and financial loss.  As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for his sufferings.  In view of the above discussion and in the absence any evidence from the side of opposite party, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.      

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to refund of Rs.2,150/- (Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) to the complainant along with Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand Only) 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% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance/realization.   

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 10^th day of November,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 265/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT