DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this this 28th day of April 2023 .
Filed on: 22/02/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No. 84/2018
COMPLAINANT
Adv.Sandeep M.B, S/o Balachandran Nair,Mangalathu House, Kadaty East, Market P.O., Muvattupuzha
Now residing at 'Sarangi' Perandoor Temple road, Elamakkara, Ernakulam.
(By Adv.T.P.Pradeep)
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Faizal, Propreitor, Galaxy Premium Car Accessories,34/1836, Metro Pillar No:469, Edappally, Kochi, High School Junction, Kerala 682024.
(o.p rep. by Adv.Rajesh Vijayendran, 35/191, Automobile Road, Palarivattom, Kochi-682 025)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They own a Maruti Ritz car with a faulty Rear-View Monitoring system. The complainant visited the shop run by the first opposite party, who claimed that the reverse camera was damaged and needed replacement. The complainant, believing the advice, purchased a new camera from the opposite party and paid Rs. 2500 for the service. However, even after the replacement, the monitoring system still did not work.
The complainant approached an authorized service center and discovered that the issue was actually a defective reverse switch, which they replaced. They also found that the old camera was functioning properly. The complainant realized that the opposite party had cheated them by selling an unnecessary camera and providing defective service. The opposite party did not issue any bill for the transaction. This caused the complainant financial loss, wasted time, and mental agony.
The complainant sent a registered notice seeking compensation, but the opposite party did not respond. The complainant, being an advocate, demanded Rs. 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and loss of valuable time, along with the return of Rs. 2500 for the unnecessary camera. They also requested the cost of the proceedings.
The complainant seeks an order from the Commission to direct the opposite party to return the camera cost, pay compensation for defective service and unfair trade practices, and cover the expenses of the proceedings.
2. Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and filed version.
3. THE VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party operates a shop selling car accessories and does not provide services, repairs, or maintenance. The complainant's claim that they visited the shop to check the rear-view monitoring system of their vehicle is false. In reality, the complainant approached the opposite party to purchase a new rear-view camera, claiming that their existing camera was defective.
The opposite party denies the allegations that they examined the camera and advised its replacement. They state that there was no need for them to check the functioning of the existing camera since the complainant themselves stated it was defective and requested a new camera worth Rs. 2500, which was installed in their car.
The opposite party also denies the complainant's claim of returning to them regarding the malfunctioning of the rear-view monitoring system or any advice given about a defective reverse switch. They state that they are not involved in car repairs or services.
Regarding the developments at the workshop mentioned by the complainant, the opposite party cannot comment as they are only engaged in sales and fittings of car accessories.
The opposite party denies any intention or occasion of cheating and emphasizes that they are not qualified to repair or service cameras. They sold the complainant the camera they requested and fitted it. They argue that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service since there have been no complaints about the new camera.
The opposite party claims to have received a lawyer's notice from the complainant and, as a gesture of goodwill, offered to refund the cost of the camera if the complainant did not need it. However, to their surprise, the complainant filed this complaint with ulterior motives to gain unlawfully from the opposite party's expense.
4) Evidence
The complainant had produced 3 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-3.
Exhibit A-1. The customer copy of successful card payment to the opposite dated 06.01.2018.
Exhibit A-2. True copy of bill issued from Jawan Automobiles dated 06.01.2018, for product purchase.
Exhibit A-3. True copy of bill issued from Jawan Automobiles dated 06.01.2018, for service charge.
The opposite had filed proof affidavit. The Opposite party (DW1) was not cross examined, as the complainant was absent.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The customer copy of successful card payment to the opposite dated 06.01.2018. (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite party
In connection with the wrong advice to change his old car rear camera with a new one with an intention to cause unlawful loss to the complainant. It is further stated that based on the said advice the complainant purchased a new rear camera from the opposite party for Rs. 2500/-, when the old camera was not defective.
The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that it is an admitted fact that the car camera purchased from the opposite party is perfectly functioning and not defective. There is no contention for the complainant that the camera purchased from the opposite party suffers from any defects. When there is no proof to show that the opposite party had checked the old camera and that it was reported to be defective by the opposite party and that the opposite party induced the complainant to purchase a new rear-view camera from their shop, the contentions of the complainant will not hold ground. The allegation of the complainant in the above case is that he was given wrong advice to change his old car rear camera with a new one with an intention to cause unlawful loss to the complainant. Based on the said advice the complainant purchased a new rear camera from the opposite party for Rs. 2500/-, when the old camera was not defective. The opposite party appeared before this Commission and filed a version disputing the contentions in the complaint. This opposite party specifically contented that they are running a shop engaged in sales and fitting of car camera and on 6/01/2018 the complainant had come to the shop of the opposite party for purchasing a new rear-view camera, saying that his existing camera had gone defective. As demanded by the complainant, a new camera was fitted inside the car. This apart there was no occasion for the opposite party to check the working of the existing camera and they are also not equipped or qualified to check or repair the same. The contention that the complainant had come to check the camera is incorrect. Only on receipt of lawyer notice from the complainant, the opposite party came to know that the existing camera which was replaced was not defective. In order to settle the issue arnicably, the opposite party was willing to refund the cost of the new camera provided it is returned. But surprisingly the complainant failed to do so and instead filed the above complaint. Even during the pendency of the proceedings before this Commission during initial stages, the opposite party had re-iterated their commitment to refund the price of the new camera provided it is returned. But surprisingly there was no response from the complainant. Subsequently, though the case was posted for evidence, there was no representation on part of complainant continuously. Even on the date, noted specified as last chance for recording the evidence of the complainant, there was no representation on behalf of the complainant. The complainant has also not been able to prove that the opposite party is a shop engaged in servicing / repairing car cameras. Hence it is proved beyond doubt that there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The opposite party had only sold and fitted a camera as sought by the complainant. It is also relevant to find that, despite any laches or negligence from the part of the opposite party, they were ready to refund the price of the camera, provided it is handed over to them. But now when almost 6 years have elapsed after selling the camera and when the complainant has turned down all requests of the opposite party for settlement, there is no purpose in getting back the 6-year-old camera and hence this opposite party is not prepared to refund the cost at this stage.
The Complainant is continuously absent since 31.01.2022. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that he was ready to settle the matter in the Adalat, the case was posted for settlement from 18.02.2020, 06.09.2021, 26.11.2021, 31.01.2022 and again posted for the evidence of the complainant on 28.02.2022 and 18.05.2022. Again on 28.12.2022 the Commission issued a notice to the complainant for appearance. The notice is seen delivered to the complainant as per proof of delivery of the postal department. Hence was posted for final hearing on 05.04.2023, the complaint was remained absent with no representation on his side. Hence this case is posted for final order on 28.04.2023. The above proceedings of the commission clearly shows that the complainant is continuously absenting himself from the proceedings of the commission for reasons best known to him.
In this light of the above circumstances, points Nos. (ii), (iii), and (iv) are found against the complainant.
Order
In the absence of any evidence from the side of the Complainant, the Commission is unable to decide this complaint on merit. Hence this complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 28th day of April 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia TN., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1. The customer copy of successful card payment to the opposite dated 06.01.2018.
Exhibit A-2. True copy of bill issued from Jawan Automobiles dated 06.01.2018, for product purchase.
Exhibit A-3. True copy of bill issued from Jawan Automobiles dated 06.01.2018, for service charge.
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
