DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 06.05.2023.
CC/124/2023
Rahul, K.P, S/o.Rajan, - Complainant
Thatchamparambath House, Ezhuvanthala PO,
Nellaya, Palakkad-679 335.
(Party-in-person)
VS
Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., -Opposite Party
Regional Office, Whites Road,
Express Estate, Royapettah,
Chennai-600 014.
(By Adv.Sameer Babu)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The complainant ordered online a double door refrigerator on 10.03.2023 from the opposite party paying Rs.23,740/- under EMI Scheme. The delivery of the product happened only on 23.03.2023 ie after a delay of over 8 days more than the normal time taken for delivery. As the product delivered was seen damaged, he requested for return on 24.03.2023, but received refund of Rs.22,072/- only on 17.04.2023. Disappointed by the overall customer service of the opposite party, this complaint is filed seeking a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed version. According to them, the delay in delivery as well as return pick up was due to non availability of the complainant in the address. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite party, the following issues were framed.
1) Whether the delay in the delivery of the product (refrigerator) was due to non availability of the customer as claimed by the opposite party?
2) Whether there was undue delay on the part of the opposite party in initiating the refund process?
3) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5) Any other reliefs.
4. The complainant failed to file proof affidavit or mark any documents as evidence in spite of repeated opportunities given by this Commission.
5. As per Section 38(b) of CP Act, 2019, “Every complaint shall be record by District Commission on the basis of affidavit and evidence placed on record”. Hence, in the absence of proof affidavit and any documents marked as evidence, this Commission is not in a position to look into the merits of this case.
6. Therefore, the complainant is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 29th day of July, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of the Court: Nil
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost :Nil.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
