Kerala

Kannur

CC/534/2023

Abdul Hameed.P.P - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sangeeth - Opp.Party(s)

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
KANNUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/534/2023
( Date of Filing : 15 Dec 2023 )
 
1. Abdul Hameed.P.P
S/o Muhammed.P.P,Thazhe Mathrakkal,Narayanpara,uliyil.P.O,Chavasseri,Kannur-670702.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Sangeeth
Manager,DTDC Courier and Cargo,55/2733,Kadavanthra,Cochi,Ernakulam.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 12 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement

SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.30,000/-  to the complainant as the damage caused to the product and compensation for mental agony, strain and cost of proceedings for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

The case of the complainant in brief

            The complainant’s son purchased old ONIX (80Cm LED TV) from his friend at Ernakulam and send the TV to his father, the complainant at Mattannur through opposite party.  At the time of entrusting the TV to opposite party’s institution the opposite party said that the service charge and packing charges will given to opposite party, then he assured that the parcel will delivered to complainant’s hand with due care.  For the assurance of opposite party the complainant’s son paid Rs.1,300/- to OP (Rs.800/- packing charge and Rs.500/- as courier charge) on 06/11/2023.  Then on 09/11/2023 the complainant approached OP’s agency shop at Matannur and received the parcel.  At the time of delivery of the parcel, the agent of OP at Mattannur states that parcel is not properly packed.  Then the complainant reached his house and opened the parcel he seen that the TV’s glasses are broken and the display of the TV is not in a working condition.  Immediately the complainant informed the matter to his son and he states that the parcel is packed by the OP itself.  Then the complainant informed the matter to Mattannur agent.  Then the Mattannur agent replied that immediately inform the matter to OP.  Then the complainant informed the matter to OP.  At first the OP admits that they are ready to repair the TV.  But after thought the OP changed his admission and not ready to cure the defects of the TV also.  The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

            After filing the complaint notice issued to OP.  Then the OP received the notice and not appeared before the commission and no version filed.  The commission had to hold that the OP has no version as such in this case came to be proceed against the OP as set         ex-parte. 

            Even though the OP has remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP.  Hence the complainant was called up on to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 3 documents marking them as Ext.A1 and A3 and complainant was examined as Pw1.  So the OP remains absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

Let us have a clear glance at the relevant document of the complainant.   Ext.A1 is the bill issued by OP   dated 06/11/2023 for an amount of Rs.1300/-.   Ext. A2 is the photo of the parcel and Ext.A3 is the photo of the TV.  It is clear that TV’s glasses are broken and display of the TV not working, the OP is packed the parcel without any care of the product.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the OP is liable to repair the TV with free of cost in a working condition to complainant along with Rs.6,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to repair the TV in a working condition with free of cost to complainant along with Rs.6,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost  within 30 days of receipt of this order.  Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts.

A1  - Bill

A2- Photos

A3–Photo of TV back side (Photo copy)

 

      Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                        Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                              MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

 

 

Assistant Registrar

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RAVI SUSHA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Moly Kutty Mathew]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sajeesh. K.P]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.