By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019
2. Facts of the case in brief: The Complainant had purchased Kodak digital progressive ante glare with blue cut 1.75 power reading glasses and K Plus eye glass frame from the Opposite party for Rs.4,490/- on 30.12.2022, due to the difficulty of reading very small letters. After a few months, the frame of the glasses got damaged and colour changed, so the Complainant intimated directly to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party told that the model given to the Complainant was not in stock and would be replaced later. Thereafter, the Complainant again went to the Opposite Party Company and demanded the Kodak Company should replace the frame but they instructed to wait for the new frame to arrive from Goa. Two weeks later, on 14.03.2023, when the Complainant requested to replace the frame of the spectacles, they told that the company had stopped manufacturing the frame of that model and further told that the shop had an old frame in stock which was used for demo purposes. It was brought to the attention of the shopkeeper that the frame was also damaged and the Complainant returned it with lens of spectacles on 14.03.2024. On 28.03.2024, the opposite Party said that they couldn’t do anything for replacement of the Spectacles. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party in this case accepted notice issued by this Commission but failed to appear or file version. Therefore the Commission declared them as ex parte.
4. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. A1 to A3.
5. The Complainant alleges that, he had purchased the spectacles from the Opposite Party for Rs.4,490/-, after few months there appeared some defect in the frame of the spectacles and the Complainant approached the Opposite Party several times. Here the Complainant couldn’t produce the frame of the spectacles before this Commission because the same is given to the Opposite Party on 14.03.2024. On the basis of materials on records, it is found that the Complainant had purchased spectacles from the opposite Party. If the allegations are not true definitely the Opposite Party would appear and contest the same. But they have not appeared before the Commission, which shows the allegations made by the Complainant are true. The Opposite Party failed to appear before the Commission and in the absence of any materials from the Opposite Party and relying upon the evidence adduced by the Complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed, and the Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.4,490/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Only) towards the cost of the spectacles to the Complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant.
The above amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest from the date of this Order till the realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 8th day of August 2024.
Date of Filing:-01.04.2024.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Binoy Thomas. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Cash Bill. Dt:24.12.2022.
A2. Printout of Kotak Offer advertisement.
A3. Copy of receipt of complaint given to Kalpetta GST Office.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
