DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 01/09/2021
CC/134/2021
Rajesh, R.,
Chundakkadu House,
Ayyakkadu P. O, Vadakkenchery
Palakkad – 678 683 - Complainant
(By Adv. Radheesh Gopalan & Adv. Sreeraj.R.Valliyode)
Vs
1. West Way Electronics Ltd.,
B-102, Phase-II, Noida
Uttar Pradesh - 201 305
2. Venu's Digital Arcade
15/1092, Thangam Junction
N. H, Vadakkenchery
Palakkad District – 678 683 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.P.K.Suresh Babu)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant purchased a LED TV manufactured by first opposite party from the second opposite party dealer on 6/09/2018 for Rs. 13900/-. On 10/07/2021, the display of the TV stopped working and the screen went black. This issue was communicated to the Customer Care Executive of the first opposite party and a complaint was registered. Since there was no response from the first opposite party, the complainant approached the second opposite party and requested to take up the matter with the first opposite party for replacement of the product as per warranty terms. As there was no positive response from either of the opposite parties, the complainant sent letters to both of them on 25/08/2021 indicating that he will be forced to approach Consumer Commission if the matter is not resolved. As there was no response, he approached this Commission seeking replacement of the defective TV, compensation of Rs 5,00,000/- and cost.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed their version. Since the first opposite party didn't appear, the complainant was directed to take steps for issuance of notice to first opposite party or produce their e-mail id; otherwise atleast the source of the address of the first opposite party which he had already produced to arrive at a presumption that it was properly issued. But the complaint was continuously absent and failed to take any steps.
3. Since, the complainant was continuously absent for the proceedings, the case was taken for orders based on merits.
4. His continuous absence during the proceedings of the case gives us an indication that he is not interested in proceeding with the case. None of the documents had attained an evidentiary value and are not reliable to arrive at a conclusion based on merits regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practice alleged on the part of opposite parties.
5. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined- Nil
Cost- Nil
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.
