DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this 20th day of December 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 08.07.2021
CC/99/2021
Asar Ali,
Shaa Manzil, Nochur,
Koduvayur, P. O.
Palakkad 678 501
(Party in person) - Complainant
Vs
1. The Manager /Managing Director (Flipkart)
Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd.,
Begonia &Clove Embassy Tech Village,
Outer Ring Road, Bevara Beesana halli village,
Bengaluru, Karnataka -560 103.
2. The Manager/Managing Director
(Sanes Retails Pvt. Ltd, NDR Warehousing Pvt. Ltd.,
525,526,529,533 Okkikipaalayam, Palladam Road,
Othakalmandapam, Coimbatore,
Tamilnadu
(Opposite party 1 & 2 By Adv. Manoj Ambat)
3. The Manager,/Managing Director(Samsung India )
DLF Centre, Sansad Marg,
6th Floor, New Delhi-110 001
(By Adv. Manimangalath Sameer Babu) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty, N.K, Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief
- The Complainant purchased a Samsung Galaxy F. 62 model mobile phone through the online platform of the first opposite party for Rs. 23999/-. Since the product received was found lacking some of the specifications of the model, he requested for replacement and also filed a complaint regarding the issues mentioned. But the technician deputed for attending the complaint could not resolve the defect and as per his advice, the complainant reregistered the complaint. But the request was rejected
According to him, this amounts to deficiency in service and hence approached this Commission seeking refund of the cost of the mobile phone and compensation of Rs. 200,000/- towards financial loss & mental agony.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their versions. Since the opposite parties contested the matter, the case was taken up for evidence after closing pleadings and pre-trial steps.
3. But the complainant has not filed proof affidavit or adduced any evidence in support of his pleadings in the complaint. Further he was continuously absent during the proceedings. Hence the complaint taken for orders based on merits.
4. The absence of proof affidavit or any documentary evidence from the complainant's side clearly shows that the complainant has neither made any serious effort to prove the case nor is he interested in proceeding with the case.
5. In the absence of any evidence, even to prove a prima- facie case
against the opposite parties, the complaint is qualified for dismissal.
Hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of December, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant-Nil
Documents marked from the side of Opposite party –Nil
Witness examined –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.
