DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024.
Filed On: - 14.08.2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu - President
Shri.V.Ramachandran - Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N - Member
C.C. No- 566/2023
COMPLAINANT
Pramodan V.S, S/o. Sekharan, Vazhattu House, Mazhuvannoor P.O, Ernakulam, PIN - 686669
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY
Roots Auto Parts, Surabhi Tower, Cattle Market Road, Perumbavoor P.O,
Cochin, PIN- 683542
FINAL ORDER
D.B. Binu, President.
1)A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Mahindra Bolero pickup vehicle with registration number KL-71/1870, which is in the complainant's ownership and possession, is being driven by the complainant on a contract basis for a private institution, providing the complainant with a livelihood from the income derived from it. To resolve the issue of water entering the headlight of this vehicle, the complainant purchased two headlights on January 17, 2023, from the opposite party's establishment for 5,600 rupees each, based on their assurance that they were original Mahindra company headlights. The complainant bought them solely based on the assurance given by the opposite party that they were original headlights. However, when one of the headlights again had water entering it during the rain, obstructing visibility, the complainant directly complained to the opposite party's establishment, but they were not willing to replace it. Subsequently, when the vehicle was shown to the workshop, it was stated that the headlight was not original. The opposite party defrauded the complainant by providing a counterfeit product.
In this situation, the complainant requests the Commission to order the opposite party to replace the product for the complainant and, if the opposite party is not willing to do so, to ensure that appropriate compensation is recovered from the opposite party.
2)Notice
The Commission issued notice to the opposite party, who acknowledged receiving it. However, despite this acknowledgment, the opposite party failed to submit their version within the statutory deadline. As a result, they have been set as ex-parte in these proceedings.
3)Evidence
The complainant submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with one document, marked as Exhibit-A-1.
Exhibit A-1: True copies of the tax invoice for the headlight purchased from the opposite party on 17-01-2023, along with the received bill.
4)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 party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5)The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. True copies of the tax invoice for the headlight purchased from the opposite party on 17-01-2023, along with the received bill (Exhibit A-1), establish that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The complainant purchased two headlights for their Mahindra Bolero pickup (registration KL-71/1870) from the opposite party on 17-01-2023 for 5,600 rupees each, based on the assurance that they were original Mahindra company parts. One of the headlights again experienced water ingress during rain, obstructing visibility. Despite a direct complaint to the opposite party's establishment, the issue was not resolved. A workshop later confirmed the headlight was not original. This refusal has led to a complaint of deficient service against the opposite party, and the complainant requests the Commission to order the opposite party to replace the counterfeit product or provide appropriate compensation.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version despite receiving the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the complainant's words against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
- Analysis and Legal Reasoning
The primary issues to consider are the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party. The evidence presented by the complainant, including the tax invoice (Exhibit A-1), supports the claim that the opposite party provided counterfeit headlights under the assurance that they were original. This constitutes a clear deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines "deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance which is required to be maintained under any law or as is claimed by the trader.
- Liability of the Opposite Party
Given the evidence and the opposite party's non-compliance, it is clear that the opposite party is liable for the deficiencies in service and the resulting inconvenience and potential danger caused to the complainant. The opposite party must be held accountable for providing a counterfeit product and failing to address the issue upon the complainant's complaint. The Honourable National Commission's stance in 2017 (4) CPR 590 (NC) supports the view that non-submission of a version by the opposite party amounts to an admission of the allegations. The unilateral failure of the opposite party to settle the claim, despite no reasonable justification for such refusal, as a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The opposite party's failure to provide a satisfactory resolution or even engage in the proceedings indicates a lack of accountability and disregard for consumer rights. Their inaction supports the complainant's allegations of fraudulent practice and deficient service.
Conclusion
We determine that issue numbers (i) to (iv) are resolved in the complainant's favor due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.
ORDER
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall replace the counterfeit headlights with original Mahindra company headlights.
- The Opposite Party shall pay ₹10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees) towards compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party, and for the mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant ₹5,000 (Five Thousand Rupees) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Should there be a failure to comply within the stipulated period, the amounts detailed in Point II will accrue interest at an annual rate of 9% from the date of filing of the case (14.08.2023) till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1: True copies of the tax invoice for the headlight purchased from the opposite party on 17-01-2023, along with the received bill.
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 566/2023
Order Date: 28/05/2024
