DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of July, 2024

                                                                   Filed on: 19/10/2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                             Member

C.C. NO. 480/2022

COMPLAINANT

Nixon Jose, S/o. A.T. Jose, Appaparambil House, No. 258, Elookkara, Muppathadam P.O., 683110

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

1. Could Tail India Pvt. Ltd., TCL Warehouse Unit 1, SF No. 496/A, 497, Mopperipalayam Viullage, Koduvettipalayam, Karumathapatti Palladam Taluk, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu 641659
2. Hisence India Pvt. Ltd., Regd. Office: 401, Business Avenue Lane No. 6, Koregan Park, Pune 411001.

F I N A L    O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had purchased a Hisens 4K Ultra HD smart Android TV from the 2^nd opposite party through online platform of Amazon. The complainant had purchased this TV on 26/04/2024 for Rs.29,990/-. The opposite parties had provided 2 year brand warranty for the product. Within a short period from the date of purchase the TV showed some defects and the complainant had contacted the Toll free number provided by the opposite party for resolving the issue. But the opposite parties had denied the warranty eventhough 2 years warranty was assured to the complainant for the product. The complainant had tried to contact the Amazon also. The complainant has got no positive response from the Amazon. Then the complainant had tried to contact the 2^nd opposite party over phone. The executive personnels of the 2^nd opposite party had behaved rudely to the complainant. The complainant had to suffer huge mental agony, pain and other sufferings due to the negligence from the part of opposite parties. The complainant had also tried to contact the higher officials of opposite party and they had provided a number 021260799 and the opposite party also assured that the complaint will be updated in a short period and the defects can be rectified soon. But thereafter no reply received from the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.29,990/- to the complainant.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 08/11/2022. The notices sent to 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties returned with an endorsement ‘left’ and the matter was posted for furnishing the fresh address of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to 07/01/2023 and then to 13/04/2023 and then to 15/07/2023 for furnishing the fresh address of opposite parties. On 05/06/2023, the Commission had directed the office to issue notice to the complainant. The said notice seen served on 04/07/2023. Complainant has not turned up on the subsequent hearing on 21/07/2023, 13/10/2023 and 03/01/2024. Then another notice was sent to the complainant on 26/03/2024 which is also seen served on 02/04/2024. The complainant has not turned up on the subsequent hearing on 08/04/2024 and on 09/07/2024.

Due to the lack of interest to attend the hearing and due to the inconsistent attendance and failure to submit the present address of opposite parties the Commission has no other alternative, that is not to proceed the case. The complaint can’t proceed further without the service of notices to the opposite parties.

Upon review of the records it is noted that the complainant did not file a proof affidavit eventhough 6 documents were submitted along with the complaint. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant’s case. We find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of the present address of the opposite parties. The opposite parties can’t be held liable for their deficiency in service without proper acknowledgement of acceptance of notice issued to them. Hence the complaint is dismissed in view of the complainant’s inconsistent attendance from the first posting date of the complaint itself and also due to the lack of interest to furnish the present address of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of July, 2024.

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/                                                                               CC No. 480/2022

Order Date: 30/07/2024