Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/209/2020

Ramachandran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Smart Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN            : PRESIDENT

          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                                                                                   SRI.VIJU.V.R                      : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.209/2020 (Filed on : 23/10/2020)

ORDER DATED : 03/11/2022

COMPLAINANT

Ramachandran Nair,

TC.29/860-5, House No.87,

Pankajam House, Palkulangara.P.O

Thriuvananthapuram

(Party in person)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

The Proprietor,

Smart Electronics Samsung (Authorized Service Centre)

TC 28/986 (2), SWARA,

Sreekandeswaram, Thiruvananthapuram – 695023

ORDER

SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN        : PRESIDENT

1. This complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.

2.       This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the compliant, notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.

3.       The case of the complainant in short is that the Samsung TV belongs to the complainant in brought to the service station of the opposite party and after service the TV was returned to the complainant by collecting an amount of Rs.8,775/- from the complainant towards service charges. The complainant was made to believe by the opposite party that two mother boards were changed. According to the complainant the changed mother board was not given to the complainant. The complainant further states that he put some marks on the mother board before giving the television to the opposite party for service, for identifying the same. After service, when the complainant verified the mother board, the marks put by him was there and hence according to the complainant, the opposite party has not changed the mother board. The complainant further states that without changing the mother boards, the opposite party collected Rs.8,775/- from the complainant  and the same amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on that part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this commission for redressing his grievances. The opposite party through his written version denied the allegations raised by the complainant. The opposite party contended that at the time of taking back the television after service, the complainant not demanded the changed spare parts and that was the reason why it was not handed over to the complainant. According to the opposite party the complainant demanded the old spare parts only after two weeks from the date of delivery of the television to the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the Samsung Company used to collect E-waste from the service centers as part of the E-waste management. The opposite party further states that the mother boards of the televisions now manufactured are with SMD Technology and hence it is impossible to make repairs by replacing components from the mother board. The opposite party further contended that all the spare parts and boards of the Samsung company are supplied with part number sticker and the photograph of the mother board produced by the complainant before this commission is also having such sticker and hence the allegation raised by the complainant are false and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 on the part of the complainant. Though the opposite party filed written version, not filed affidavit or marked any documents on the side of the opposite party. Hence there is no oral or documentary evidence except written version from the side of the opposite party.

5.The issues to be considered in this case

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
3. Ordered as to cost.

6.       Heard. Perused records and  affidavit. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were produced and marked.Ext.A1 is the cash receipt dated 27/06/2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A2 series is the photographs of the mother board (two in number). Ext.A3 is the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant to the opposite party. The opposite party admitted that the complainant has brought the television to the service station of the opposite party on 15/06/2020 and that after repair the same was handed over to the complainant by collecting Rs.8775/-. Now the point to be considered is whether the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has not replaced the mother board as claimed by them. The complainant’s case is that without replacing the mother boards the opposite party has collected the charges of mother boards which is illegal and amounts to unfair practice. Though there is no expert evidence in support of the complainant to establish that the mother board was not replaced, mere filing of a written version by the opposite party denying the allegations raised by the complainant is not sufficient to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case put forward against the opposite party. In view of the admitted facts and in view of the above discussion, we find that this complaint is to be allowed in favour of the complainant in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party.

                   In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant along with Rs.2500/- towards the cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order, till the date of remittance / realization.       

       A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 3^rd day of November 2022.

                                                                                 Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                              Sd/-

VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

                                                                                          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.209/2020

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Ramachandran Nair

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.A1                  - Copy of cash receipt dated 27/06/2020

Ext.A2 series         - Copy of photographs of the mother board ( 2 in No)

Ext.A3                  - Copy of Legal notice    

List of witness for the opposite party                    - NIL

Exhibits for the opposite party                             - NIL

Court Exhibits                                                      - NIL

 

 

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                               PRESIDENT