DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 23^rd day of July 2024

                                                                             Filed on: 21.05.2022

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

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

C.C No. 259/2022

Complainant:
Jibin Pious, Father's Name: Pius Joseph, Illegally House, Thathappilly P.O, Pin- 683 520

Opposite Parties:

1. JBL India Customer Care, #9, Srinivasa Colony Behind Double Road, Bengaluru, Pin- 560 027
    
2. Flipkart India Private Limited, Vaishnavi Summit, Ground Floor, 7th Main, 80 Feet Road, 3rd Block, Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 034

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 follows:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant purchased a JBL BAR 2.1 Dolby Digital with a Wireless Subwoofer 300W Bluetooth Soundbar from Flipkart on October 18, 2020. On July 8, 2021, the complainant registered a complaint about a technical issue. Despite six inspections by a technician, the defect remained unidentified. The technician eventually took the product to the service centre. Subsequently, the complainant registered another complaint on November 13, 2021. After six months, the product was returned to the complainant.

The complainant was informed that a technician would visit their home, but no technician arrived. Upon contacting JBL customer service, the complainant was assured that a technician would visit by December 16, 2021. However, no email or call was received from a technician. Upon further contact, the service centre promised a visit on January 6, 2022, which again did not happen. Despite these promises, no technician visited, and the product remained unrepaired.

The product was taken away by the opposite party on January 6, 2022, but the complaint was only registered on January 26, 2022. Now, the opposite party demands a service charge of nine thousand rupees, claiming that the warranty period is over. The complainant asserts that they had to approach the company multiple times due to the unwillingness of the opposite party to resolve the complaint registered during the warranty period.

The complainant requests that the Commission take appropriate action against the opposite party for their failure to resolve the issue within the warranty period and for demanding an unjust service charge. The complainant seeks a resolution to the issue through this complaint.

2.  Notice:

The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties. The notice to the first opposite party did not return. However, the notice to the second opposite party was returned with the endorsement of the postal department as "addressee left." Consequently, the Commission informed the complainant to furnish the correct addresses of the opposite parties. The complainant has not responded and has not provided the correct addresses of the opposite parties so far.

3. Evidence:

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but submitted photocopies of eight documents with the complaint.

4. Complainant's Non-Compliance:

The complainant appeared before the Commission only on May 28, 2022. However, from this date onwards, the complainant has repeatedly failed to attend subsequent hearings. The Commission issued directions to the complainant to appear and submit the correct addresses of the opposite parties. Additionally, on March 3, 2024, the Commission's office contacted the complainant by phone to inform them of the forthcoming hearing date, yet the complainant failed to attend this date as well.

Despite multiple opportunities, the complainant has neither provided the necessary correct addresses of the opposite parties nor made further appearances to take alternative steps before the Commission, showing a lack of interest in advancing the case.

5. Principles of Natural Justice:

The principles of natural justice mandate that both parties in a dispute must be given a fair opportunity to present their case.

Audi Alteram Partem (Hear the other side) Guarantees that each party has the opportunity to present their case and respond to the evidence against them, ensuring no one is condemned unheard. In this context, the Commission's request for the correct addresses of the opposite parties aligns with the principles of natural justice. By obtaining the correct addresses, the Commission ensures that the opposite parties are properly notified and given a chance to present their side, maintaining procedural fairness and transparency.

O R D E R

             In view of the continuous absence of the complainant and the failure to submit the correct addresses of the opposite parties, it is evident that the complainant has shown a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Consequently, this complaint is hereby dismissed due to the complainant's non-compliance. No cost.

          Pronounced in the open Commission on this 23^rd day of July 2024.

Sd/-

                                                                                                D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded by Order

    Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Documents are not marked as Exhibits

Date of despatch   :

By Hand      ::

By Post       ::

uk/