DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th day of  April, 2022

Present        :   Sri.Vinay Menon.V  President

                    :   Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                      

                    :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                      Date of Filing:  18/09/2020 

     CC/112/2020

Senthilkumar T

Eraivan Illam,

Nombikkode,

Elappully Post,

Palakkad – 678 622

 (Party in Person)                                                                    -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

1.Managing Director,

   Vu Technologies Pvt.Ltd.

   29, MIDC, Central Road,

    Andheri East,

    Mumbai – 400 093

2.Manager,

   Lulu Connect,

   Lulu Shopping Mall,

   Edapally – Kochi – 682024

3.Technical Support Manager,

    Vu Technologies Pvt.Ltd.

   1^st Floor, Sky Bright Building,

   39/3479, M.G.Road, Ravipuram,

   Ernakulam                                                                             -          Opposite parties

   (Opposite parties by their respective

    Authorised representatives)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. The complainant is aggrieved by the alleged manufacturing defect in the TV purchased by him from the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant alleges that there is a four inch  wide blackout patch  in his TV manufactured by the 1^st opposite party and that the black shade and partial images prevented the complainant and his family from putting the TV to use.  The opposite parties have not cared to repair or replace the TV. Hence, complaint was filed seeking repayment of the cost of TV alongwith attenuating expenses and compensation
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version repudiating complaint pleadings.
3. Throughout the complaint proceedings the complainant remained absent for most of the postings.  Even though there was a clear direction on 21/2/2022 to the complainant to appear before this Commission, the complainant failed to appear on 31/3/2022. Hence, we took the matter for orders based on merits.
4. The complainant had filed an affidavit  and 3 documents were sought to be marked. They are the purchase bill, field call reports and a series of e-mails issued by complainant to the first opposite party. The said documents would not in any manner prove the case of the complainant that the TV suffers from any manufacturing defects. The complainant ought to have taken out an expert in the field to ascertain the damages, if any. Having failed  to do so, the complaint lacks any strong footing.
5. In the result we dismiss the complaint as lacking in merits.

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 8^th  day of  April, 2022.

                          Sd/-                                                 

                     Vinay Menon V.

                                                                         President

      Sd/-

                 Vidya A.

                                           Member     

                    Sd/-

                                                                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                            Member