Kerala

Palakkad

CC/192/2021

Mahesh.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

16 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Near District Panchayath Office, Palakkad - 678 001, Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/192/2021
( Date of Filing : 10 Nov 2021 )
 
1. Mahesh.K
S/o. Krishnan, Meena Nagar, Kalmandapam, Palakkad.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director
G.P. Appliances 119, First Floor, Vipul Business Park,Sector-48, Sohna Raod, Tehsil Badshahpur, Gurgaon, Gurgaon HR- 122 004
2. The Branch Manager
My G Showroom, Door No. 24/986, Stadium Bypass Rd, PO, Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad - 678013
3. The Managing Director
My G Corporate Office, Carino Vertu Building, Bypass Road, Puthiyara, Kozhikode -673 004
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Vinay Menon.V PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Vidya A MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Krishnankutty. N.K MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Dec 2022
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16th day of December, 2022

 

Present   :   Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

              :   Smt.Vidya A., Member           

              :   Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                    

   Date of Filing: 10/11/2021 

 

CC/192/2021

 

Mahesh, K.,

S/o P.Krishnan

Meena Nagar,                                   -                                       Complainant

Palakkad

(Party in person)

 

VS

                                                                        

1.       Managing Director,

          G.P.Appliances, 119, First Floor,

          Vipul Business Park, Sector -48,

          Sohna Road, Tehsil Badshapur,

          Gurgaon,, Gurgaon HR – 122 004

          (Ex-parte)

                      

2.       Branch Manager,

          MyG Showroom,

          Door No. 24/986

          Stadium bypass Road,

          Kunnathurmedu,

          Palakkad – 678 013

          (Ex-parte)

 

3.       Managing Director,

          My G Corporate Office,

          Carrion Virtue Building, Bypass Road,

          Puthiyara, Kozhikode 673 004              -                               Opposite parties

          (Ex-parte)

 

O R D E R

 

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member  

                  

  1.  The Complainant purchased a GP 032 HD TV manufactured by first opposite party from the second opposite party dealer for a price of Rs. 8490/- on 22/01/2021. According to the complainant, the dealer had informed that the product is having two year warranty. Approximately one month after the purchase, the TV developed some complaints. This was reported to the second opposite party, but nobody came to attend to the complaint. Hence the complainant took the TV to the second opposite party to convince them about the complaint, but they, instead of attending to his grievance, insulted him and refused to rectify the defects of the TV under warranty. Hence he approached this Commission seeking refund of the purchase price of Rs. 8490/- and a compensation of Rs. 20000/- for mental agony and financial loss.

 

  2.     Notices were issued to the opposite parties, but they didn't enter appearance and hence were set ex-parte.

 

3.     The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext. A-1 and A-2 as evidence. A-1 is the copy of purchase invoice and A-2 is the copy of the warranty card.

 

 4.      In the absence of any counter statement or arguments from the side of the opposite parties, this Commission is bound only to see if the complainant had made out a prima facie case and pass orders accordingly.  The document marked as Ext. A-2, the warranty card issued to the complainant clearly shows that the TV is having warranty of 2 years.  Since the alleged complaint of the TV happened within 1 month of purchase, the opposite parties have the responsibility to cure the defects as per the warranty terms and the failure to do so amounts to deficiency in service.  While the complainant attended the proceedings of this case duly filing his proof affidavit and marking necessary documents in support of his arguments, the opposite parties with resources, both men and material, willfully ignored the case and refused to utilize the opportunity given by this Commission to come forward with their arguments to disprove the allegations of the complainant.

 

  5.    In the result, a prima facie case is proved by the complainant and hence      

         the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

 

A. The opposite parties shall refund the original cost of the TV   

Rs.8490/-along with interest @10% P.A from 20/01/2021 till the date of payment,

                   B. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 10000/- as    

                       compensation for mental agony and other inconveniences  

                       caused,

                   C. Rs. 5000/- as cost.

                   D. In the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party 2 is

                        directed to satisfy the order immediately. 

E.  As it will not be economically viable for the complainant to  

                        proceed as against The opposite party 1, we are casting liability

                        on opposite party 2.  Opposite Party 2 is at liberty to avail their 

                        pro-rata share from other opposite parties in the course of their

                        routine business with opposite party 1 & opposite party 2. 

 

 

                       

            Pronounced in open court on this the 16th 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

Ext. A-1: The purchase invoice of the TV dated 22/01/2021 for Rs. 8490/- issued by

               opposite party 2.

Ext. A-2: Warranty card issued for the TV dated 22/01/2021

 

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties – NIL

 

Witness Examined – NIL

 

Cost – Rs. 5000/-

 

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.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Vinay Menon.V]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Vidya A]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Krishnankutty. N.K]
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.