By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This consumer complaint is filed by Shine Thomas, St. Antonys UP School, Pazhoor against the Proprietor, Meera Medical Shop and Another under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The Complainant states that the Complainant had purchased “one touch select simple” blood test device from the 1st Opposite Party who is the dealer of the device manufactured by the 2nd Opposite Party on payment of Rs.1,320/- and test strips for Rs.620/- on 28.08.2019. At the time of purchase the Opposite Party promised that the product will last for years and warranty card is also issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Party, in which it is stated that 3 years warranty shall be available. Complainant states that the Complainant used the device as per the instruction in the booklet provided. In the 1st use itself, some defects were noticed and the device was taken to the 1st Opposite Party who verified the device with remaining strips and kept with the 1st Opposite Party and told that the same will be returned within 3 days. After one week, the 1st Opposite Party told that the defects are cured. The Complainant purchased a new set of strips and attempted for 7 times but failed and in the 8th attempt the display of the device was also lost. The Complainant stats that the 1st Opposite Party offered free service of defect within 2 weeks and believing the same the Complainant returned the device to the 1st Opposite Party and obtained an endorsement on the back side of the bill, but the device is not returned and hence the Complainant had approached this Commission praying for issuing direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the defective device or to refund an amount of Rs.2,540/- towards the price of device and the strips along with other reliefs.
3. Notice was issued to both Opposite Parties from the Commission. It is revealed from the records that 1st Opposite Party was set ex-parte on 18.10.2022. Thereafter on 05.06.2023 the Complainant filed an I.A.404/2023 to delete the 2nd Opposite Party from the party array which was allowed by the Commission and the case was posted for ex-parte evidence on 15.07.2023. On that day the Counsel appearing for Complainant submitted that the Complainant has no oral evidence and case was adjourned to 27.07.2023 for hearing and thereafter on 07.08.2023, the Complainant’s Counsel was heard. No chief affidavit is also filed by the Complainant.
4. In this case the following points are to be considered by the Commission.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of the Opposite Parties?
- If proved the compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant?
5. The Commission considered the matter in detail. The allegations in the complaint are verified with reference to the documents produced.
6. In this case, the Complainant had not filed chief affidavit to prove the allegation and not entered in to box to give evidence. Even though the Complainant had produced two documents namely one bill with a write up on the reverse side as “X¶n«pv” and the other is a warranty card. As far as the 1st one is concerned there is no mention regarding the name of purchaser and also which is not signed or sealed. These documents are not marked in evidence. Considering all these aspects this Commission is of the opinion that the Complainant had not proved his case and Point No.1 is found against the Complainant. Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant the Commission has not considered the Point No.2.
7. Under the above circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is only to be dismissed.
Hence the consumer complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of August 2023.
Date of Filing:-30.01.2020.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
