DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2023.

Present  :  Sri.Vinay Menon V. President

             :  Smt. Vidya.A., Member

    :  Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

              Date of filing: 11/05/2023                                                          

CC/129/23

Jithesh Panikath -       Complainant

Panikath House, Pattambi P.O.

Lottery Sub Office, City plaza

Palakkad. Currently Residing at

Krishnakripa (H)

Nedungottur PO

Shornur, Ottapalam Taluk

Palakkad District

(By Adv. K. R Santhoshkumar )

                                                           V/s

               -      Opposite Parties

•      Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd,

Reg. Office at 20^th to 24^th Floor

Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course,

Sector 43, Sector 43, DLF TH-V

Guargan, Haryana - 122 202.

•     Damson Technologies Pvt. Ltd,

NDR Warehousing Pvt. Ltd,

SF No 525, Okilipalayam,

Palldam Road, Othakal mandapam

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

•      Samsung Service Centre
          (8302387 TVS Electronics Limited)

1^st Floor, Global Crest, 11/380-B

Trissur - 680 021

(All Opposite parties are Ex-parte).

O R D E R

By  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member.

1.Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complainant  purchased online a Samsung Galaxy watch bearing serial number RFAR40PY4SL manufactured by first opposite party, from second opposite party on 06/08/2021 for Rs. 13990/-through the platform of Flipkart.

After a few days  it was found that the display was not working.The watch was handed over to the third opposite party for repair. According to the complainant the product got damaged in the hands of third opposite party. Though they agreed initially to rectify the damages under warranty, they returned the watch without repairing on 09/11/2021, saying that the repair is not covered under warranty.The allegation is that the OP1 &2 sold the product with manufacturing defect and the OP 3 caused further damage to the same. Though the complainant sent a notice to the OP1,and furnished all details asked by them, they have neither replaced the product or refunded the cost as demanded by the complainant.Hence this complaint seeking refund of Rs. 13990/-being the cost of the watch,Rs. 200000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice, along with Rs. 10000/-as cost of litigation.

•      Notices were issued to the opposite parties. OPs 1&3 entered appearance and filed their version. But it was rejected as it was filed after the statutory period. As the notice sent to the OP3 was returned, the complainant was asked to furnish their e-mail id, which has not been done by the complainant.
•      Though the case was referred for settlement on 29/09/23, no settlement could be reached as the complainant and OP 2&3 were absent.
•      The complainant has been continuously absent for the proceedings of the case. Further, he hasn't filed proof affidavit or marked any   documents in support of his pleadings.
•      As per Section 38(6) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019,"Every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission, on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record". In the absence of proof affidavit and documentary evidence to prove  even a prima facie case against the opposite parties, this Commission is unable to decide on the merits of this case.
•      Resultantly the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th  day of October,2023.

                                                                                                 Sd/-        

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                           President.

            Sd/-

                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                               Mem