By. Smt. Beena. M, President (I/C):
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:
On 22-02-2018, the Complainant went to Opposite Party’s store to purchase a Stereo set for his car. At the time of purchase, the Opposite Party told that Crs Led Stereo is a good quality product. By believing the words of the Opposite Party, the Complainant purchased the product and paid an amount of Rs.4,600/- to the Opposite Party. The Complainant fitted the Stereo in his car and used the same but shortly after it’s fittings, it showed some errors and the display showed a crack on it. On 28.02.2018, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party with the stereo. He told the Complainant that sometimes some system will have some Complaints and he told that he will repair it within one week and otherwise he will substitute it with a new one. After one week, the Complainant went to the store and enquired about the system but the Opposite Party without giving the system told that it will take time to get it back. Thereafter, the Complainant many times approached the Opposite Party to get back his stereo system but the Opposite Party did not give back the same. On purchase, the Complainant had paid for the stereo system and bought it after the Opposite Party had said that if the stereo system had any Complaint, it could be repaired or replaced. The Complainant hadn't been able to use it even a week after he bought it. There has been unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the other party and thus the Complainant put to irreparable loss and mental agony. Hence the Complainant prayed to direct the Opposite Party to give the system after rectifying the mistake within a short period or recover the amount he had paid and damages of Rs.25,000/-.
3. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party but it was returned with endorsement ‘‘addressee out of station’’ and “intimation served’’. It is presumed that notice is served. Since there was no representation for the Opposite Party, the Commission declared him as ex-parte.
4. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and adduced oral evidence, he was examined as PW1. The Complainant has produced purchase bill and stereo system. The bill was marked as Ext.A1 and the stereo system was marked as MO1.
5. Ext A1 bill shows that he had purchased stereo system by paying Rs.4,600/. There is no explanation from the side of the Opposite Party to rebut the evidence rendered by PW1 as the Opposite Party did not adduce any evidence. Hence, we are constrained to believe the evidence adduced from the side of the Complainant.
6. From the available evidence and testimony of the Complainant, this Commission find that there is deficiency of service, negligence and unfair trade practice from the Opposite Party’s side. The Complainant proved his case undoubtedly. So, the Complainant deserves to get compensation also.
In the result, the Complaint is allowed and
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.4,600/-( Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred only) with 9% interest from the date of Complaint till the date of realization.
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation and
- The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.4,000/-( Rupees Four Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The order shall comply within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of December 2022.
Date of Filing:-19.07.2018.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Pradeep Kumar. M. LIC Agent.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Invoice. Dt:22.02.2018.
MO-1. Car Stereo.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
