BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 289/2008 Filed on 28.11.2008

Dated : 15.09.2009

Complainant:

Naseema, Manakkattuvilakathu Veedu, Kazhakkoottam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party:

M/s City Center Electronics, Beemapally, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Proprietor.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 17.08.2009, the Forum on 15.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant purchased a 21” Sony T.V and DVD on 6^th May 2008 at a cost of Rs. 8,700/- from the opposite party, that both T.V and DVD were defective, unmerchantable, and substandard from the very beginning and did not function properly, that opposite party did not issue any bill for the purchase, but only an oral warranty was expressed for a period of one year from the date of purchase. Opposite party gave an address card with contact number as a proof for purchase representing that there is no bill, that opposite party orally agreed for replacement, if any problem occurs in the performance of the items as per assurance explained. On 08.06.2008 the T.V and DVD stopped working and communicated the same to the opposite party in person and opposite party asked the complainant to bring the items to the shop of the opposite party and opposite party replaced the T.V with a Hitachi T.V set which was also found to be substandard and unmerchantable and was lacking in quality and standard represented by the opposite party. Opposite party had collected an additional amount of Rs. 300/- from the complainant. Opposite party caused sale of defective goods, perpetrated deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and unscrupulous exploitation. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to refund the cost price of Rs. 8,700/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to complainant.

Opposite party did not turn up inspite of service of notice. No version filed. Hence opposite party set exparte.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 8,700/-?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost? If so, at what amount?

In support of the complaint complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. Opposite party remains exparte. No version or documents filed by the opposite party.

Points (i) & (ii):- It has been the case of the complainant that she purchased a 21” Sony T.V and DVD on 6^th May 2008 at a cost of Rs. 8,700/- from the opposite party, that both the T.V and DVD were defective and substandard from the very beginning and did not function properly. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party did not issue any bill for the purchase, but only an oral warranty was expressed for a period of one year from the date of purchase; that opposite party gave an address card with the contact number as a proof for the purchase representing that there is no bill. It is further stated by the complainant that on 08.06.2008 the T.V and DVD stopped working and communicated the same to the opposite party in person, that opposite party had replaced the T.V with a Hitachi T.V set which was also found to be substandard and that opposite party had replaced the DVD on at least three occasions, but without supplying any standard quality product. It is further pleaded by the complainant that opposite party had collected Rs. 600/-(Rs. 300/-+ Rs. 300/-) from the complainant for replacement. Ext. P1 is the address card of the opposite party. Ext. P2 is the copy of the notice dated 28.08.2008 issued to the opposite party by COINPAR. Ext. P3 is the postal receipt dated 31.10.2008. Complainant did not produce the bill for the purchase of the said product from the opposite party. It is pleaded by the complainant that the opposite party did not issue any bill for the purchase. In this context it is worthwhile to mention that the purchase bill is the primary document upon which the consumer-seller relationship/contract is to be established. If the seller/dealer did not issue the bill for the purchase, it would definitely amount to unfair trade practice, provided the same shall be demanded from the opposite party simultaneously or immediately from the date of purchase. In this case, the alleged purchase of T.V and DVD was on 06.05.2008. Nowhere in the complaint is it mentioned that though she had demanded the bill simultaneously or immediately thereafter from the alleged date of purchase, opposite party was reluctant to issue the same, thereby opposite party had committed a clear case of unfair trade practice. It may mention that complainant never raised the said allegation of non-issuance of the bill for the alleged purchase before any authority prior to filing of this complaint, that even the notice dated 28 August 2008 (Ext. P2) is seen sent on 31.10.2008 by Ext. P3. There is no material to show that complainant had purchased the alleged T.V & DVD from the opposite party on 6^th May 2008 nor does complainant have a case that opposite party did not issue the purchase bill even after repeated requests. Even though opposite party did not turn up inspite of service of notice to him and opposite party was set exparte, complainant cannot escape from the initial onus of establishing the case. The initial onus of establishing the case would rest on the complainant. A complaint of this type cannot be allowed on mere presumption and assumption, rather it should be established on cogent and clinching evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to establish the complaint which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed.

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 Forum, this the 15^th day of September 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 289/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - B. Naseema

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Address card of the opposite party.

P2 - Copy of notice dated 28.08.2008 issued by COINPAR to

opposite party.

P3 - Postal receipt dated 31.10.2008

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT