Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/178/2021

Anil kuamr S - Complainant(s)

Versus

TEXMO Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                                       PRESENT

    SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN                   : PRESIDENT

  SMT.PREETHA G NAIR                 : MEMBER

                            SRI.VIJU.V.R                                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.178/2021 (Filed on : 26/04/2021)

ORDER DATED : 17/08/2022

COMPLAINANT

J.Anil kumar,

C/o.Chitra.S.Ajith,

Ariyannoor House,

Ariyanmoodu, Anjilipra,

Thattarampalam.P.O

Pin – 690 103

(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

The Manager, (Santhosh)

Texmo Agencies, KYLM,

Chirakadavom, Kayamkulam,

Alappuzha

(Exparte)

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that, when the complainant approached the opposite party for repairing the TV which was purchased from the opposite party by the complainant, there was no response from the opposite party in respect of the complaint registered by the complainant. Though the opposite party sent a message acknowledging the registering of the complaint by the complainant after a week, till the date of filing this complaint the opposite party has not responded inspite of a lapse of more than a month’s period. According to the complainant this attitude of the opposite party has created much inconvenience to the complainant. Inspite of contacting the opposite party on several occasions over phone as well as in person, the opposite party has not responded, which resulted in financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances. After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. The said notice was accepted by the opposite party. As the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for the appearance of the opposite party, on 30/11/2021, the opposite party was called absent and set exparte.

3.The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 & A2. The opposite party being declared exparte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.

4.Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. 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 Exts.A1 & A2 documents were produced and marked. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice dated 26/09/2020 for Rs.26,400/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant at the time of purchase of the TV by the complainant from the opposite party. Ext.A2 is the warranty registration card issued to the complainant by the opposite party. As the opposite party was declared exparte, there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. Hence we are accepting the evidence adduced by the complainant in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party. From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the same has resulted in mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. As the financial loss and mental agony are resulted due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts.A1 & A2 documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. In the above circumstances, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.

                  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation along with Rs.1000/- as 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 at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization / remittance.

                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 Commission, this the 17^th day of August 2022.

                                                                                            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN      : PRESIDENT

                                                                                              Sd/-

PREETHA.G.NAIR : MEMBER

                                                                Sd/-

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/        

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.178/2021

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - J.Anilkumar

Exhibits for the complainant
Ext.A1                  - Tax invoice dated 26/09/2020 for Rs.26,400/-.

Ext.A2                  - warranty registration card

List of witness for the opposite party          - NIL

List of Exhibits for the opposite party         - NIL

Court Exhibits                                            - NIL

                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                      PRESIDENT