DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  16^th  day of March,  2022

Present       :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.  President

                    :   Smt.Vidya A., Member                                                      Date of Filing:  11/09/2020    

     CC/106/2020

Jacob M.J.,

Maniyamkeri Kalam House,

Chenthendhu,

Machamthodu,

Thachampara Post,

Palakkad .                                                                 -                       Complainant

(By Party in Person)

                                                                                      Vs

1.The Manager/Proprietor,

    Nandilath Electro Planet,

    Kavundath City Centre,Pallipadi,

    Mannarkkad,Palakkad-678 582.                                         -         Opposite Party  

2. Managing Director,

    Sony India Pvt Ltd,

    Registered Office A18,Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

    Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110 044          

3. Manager/Proprietor,

    Access Electronics,14/748/8

    First floor Shakthi Complex, Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam,Palakkad -678 001.

    (OPs by Adv.Rajat Bhardwaj& Adv.R.Anand)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. The complainant is aggrieved by the alleged manufacturing defect  of a Bravia LED TV manufactured by second opposite party and sold by the first opposite party.  The technician attached to the third opposite party stated that the damage could not be repaired as the TV was damaged due to liquid infusion, which, according to the complainant,  is a concocted story to wriggle out of the responsibility and liability to make good the loss suffered by the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version contenting that the TV suffered damages caused by way of rust due to liquid infusion and countered the complaint allegation.
3. The complainant was directed to file proof affidavit on 21/01/2021 and the matter was posted to 27/02/2021. Even after a lapse of over one year the complainant had failed to file proof affidavit. Further more,  he was absent for three consecutive postings. Hence the matter was taken up for passing order based on merits on 11/03/2022.

4. Even though the complainant has produced five documents along with the memorandum of complaint, the said documents would not prove the case of the complainant that the TV in question suffers from any manufacturing defect. No expert Commission was taken out to prove his case.

5. Hence the case of the complainant stands unproved and is only liable to be dismissed as the complainant has failed to prove his case . The complaint, therefore, stands dismissed.

                         Pronounced in open court on this the 16^th   day of March, 2022.

                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                               Vinay Menon V

                                                                       President

                            Sd/-

                      Vidya.A

                                        Member