Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/20/49

M U SADARUDHEEN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SPECS WORLD - Opp.Party(s)

20 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/20/49
( Date of Filing : 30 Jan 2020 )
 
1. M U SADARUDHEEN
HOUSE NO.11/617 INDIRA NAGAR THOPPUMPADY COCHIN-682005
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. SPECS WORLD
KARUVELIPPADY OPP.T B HOSPITAL KARUVELIPPADY COCHIN PIN-682005
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. D.B BINU PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. RAMACHANDRAN .V MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SREEVIDHIA T.N MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 20 Jan 2023
Final Order / Judgement

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

 

Dated this the 20th day of January 2023

 

Filed on: 30.01.2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu President

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

C.C. No. 49/2020

COMPLAINANT

M.U.Sadarudheen, House No.11/617, Indira Nagar, Thoppumpady, Cochin-682 005

(Party-in-person)

 

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Proprietor, Specs World Karuvelippady, Opp. T B. Hospital, Karuvelippady, Cochin, Pin-682 005

(Ex-parte)

 

F I N A L O R D E R

V.Ramachandran, Member

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

The complainant states that the complainant had purchased lens and spectacles from the opposite party due to the reason that the lens and spectacles being used by the complainant had scratched and the opposite party after conducting eye test of the complainant advised him to replace the frame also. Therefore the complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.1300/- for the lens and frame for which the opposite party issued a bill to the complainant for Rs.800/-.

While when the complainant used the spectacle he suffered severe headache and the complainant called on the opposite party but the opposite party had not bent to make any solution or to refund the amount to the complainant. The opposite party has not responded to the repeated requests of the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking for issuing orders to the opposite party for getting refund of Rs.1300/- and for a compensation of Rs.1500/- along with other reliefs.

2) Notice

Eventhough notice was sent from this Commission to the opposite party, the opposite party did not appear nor filed their version. The said notice was served to the opposite party as revealed by the proof of delivery by the postal department. Subsequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte. Hence the complaint was considered on the basis of the evidences produced by the complainant before the Commission.

3) Evidences

The complainant produced documents which are marked as Exbt.A1 and A2.

Exbt. A1 goes to show that the opposite party had conducted an eye test of the complainant. Exbt.A2 goes to show that an amount of Rs.880/- (800/-) (as shown in bracket) was charged by the opposite party after conducting the eye test of the complainant and issued a bill bearing No.1477 on 04.01.2020 in the form of an estimate.

4) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:

(1) Whether the complainant has experienced any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs?

(3) costs of the proceedings?

5) Point No. (1)

From the document of transaction produced by the complainant as Exbt.A2 estimate, it can be seen that the complainant and the opposite party had entered into an agreement regarding the sale and purchase of lens and frames, and eye test of the complainant also has been done by the opposite party.

From Exbt.A1 it is clear that the complainant had approached the opposite party for purchasing the glass spectacles for which the price is paid. The opposite party had not made any attempt, though they were given opportunity to prove their side and they did not turn up to contest the case before the Commission. In the absence of the any contra evidences adduced by the opposite party, the evidences produced by the complainant is to be taken into face value. Hence taking into consideration the evidences adduced by the complainant along with the facts submitted by the complaint, point No. (1) is proved in favour of the complainant.

Hence point No. (2) is also decided accordingly. Therefore the following orders are issued.

ORDER

(1) The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.800/- to the complainant being the cost of spectacles purchased by the complainant from the opposite party.

(2) The opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency of service caused to the complainant.

The above orders shall be complied with, within 30 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order failing which the above amounts shall attract interest @5.5% from the date of order till the date of realization.

 

Pronounced in the Open Commission on 20th day of January 2023.

Sd/-

V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

 

Forwarded/by Order

 

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidences

Exbt.A1:: copy of computerized eye testing done by the opposite party dated 04.01.2020

Exbt.A2:: copy of estimate issued by Specs World dated 04.01.2020


 


 


 


 


 

C.C. No. 49/2020

order dated .01.2023


 


 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. D.B BINU]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. RAMACHANDRAN .V]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SREEVIDHIA T.N]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.