M/S. Sri Devi Enterprises and Others Vs. Tmt. Kamala Raman - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1110067
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai
Decided OnSep-06-2010
Case NumberF.A. No. 393 of 2009 (Against order in C.C.NO.211 of 2009 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)
JudgeHONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT, TMT. VASUGI RAMANAN, M.A.,B.L., MEMBER I & THIRU S. SAMBANDAM, B.SC., MEMBER II
AppellantM/S. Sri Devi Enterprises and Others
RespondentTmt. Kamala Raman
Excerpt:
(the respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the district forum against the appellants / opposite parties, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund rs.29000/- on taking back the refrigerator, to pay rs.65000/- towards compensation on various heads, alongwith cost. the district forum allowed the complaint. against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the district forum dt.5.10.2009 in cop no.211/2009.) m. thanikachalam j, president (open court) 1. the opposite parties are the appellants 2. the respondent, in this appeal, as complainant, claimed several reliefs, as listed in paragraph 12 of the complaint, alleging number of deficiencies, as well as unfair trade practice, as if the opposite parties have committed so, in selling a refrigerator, which failed to serve its purpose, despite report also, they have failed to rectify the same. 3. the opposite parties, though have received the notices, failed to appear before the district forum, contested the case, resulting an exparte order on merit dt.5.10.2009, which is under challenge. 4. the complainant, though claimed a total sum of rs.65000/- towards compensation, and a sum of rs.29000/- towards refund, the district fora, taking into the value of the refrigerator, and the alleged deficiency in service, coupled with unfair trade practice, ordered the opposite parties to pay only a sum of rs.29000/-, with interest thereon at 12% p.a., from 7.9.2009, alongwith compensation of rs.20000/- with cost of rs.1000/-, as per the order dt.5.10.2009, which is impugned. 5. from this commission, notice has been sent to the complainant/ respondent, and as directed the appellants/ opposite parties also have taken notice to the complainant. but, the respondent/ complainant has not appeared before this commission, whereas sent a detailed letter, reiterating the stand taken by him, before the district forum, informing subsequent events taken place, viz. the execution petition, as well as interim stay by this commission. 6. admittedly, the opposite parties have not filed any objection/ written version, though had an opportunity to challenge the averments in the complaint, and therefore, at present, we cannot say, what would be their defense, to nullify the case of the complainant. from the fact, that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator alone, it cannot be termed as unfair trade practice, or in the absence of the documents, whether the alleged defects were noticed, within the period of warranty, on report if any, whether the opposite parties have rectified the defects or not, it may not be possible for us to say empathetically, that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, warranting compensation, as granted by the district forum. therefore, despite the objection raised by the complainant, we are inclined to remit the matter back, for fresh disposal, according to law, giving an opportunity to the opposite parties to file the written version, then deciding the case on merit, since an opportunity should be given to the complainant also, who is the native of coimbatore, and no prejudice would be caused. 7. in the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the district forum in cc.no.211/2009 dt.5.10.2009, and the mater is remitted back to the district forum for fresh disposal, according to law, giving opportunity to the opposite party. parties are directed to appear before the district forum on 15.10.2010, on which date, the opposite parties shall file their written version positively. the district forum is directed to dispose the case, since the complainant claims to be a senior citizen, within two months from the date of filing of the written version. the mandatory deposit, made by the complainant shall remain, till the disposal of the complaint, and it shall abide the result of the disposal of the case. the district forum, is directed to issue notice to the complainant, since he was not represented before this commission, for the above said hearing.
Judgment:

(The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellants / opposite parties, praying for the direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.29000/- on taking back the refrigerator, to pay Rs.65000/- towards compensation on various heads, alongwith cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.5.10.2009 in COP No.211/2009.)

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT (Open court)

1. The opposite parties are the appellants

2. The respondent, in this appeal, as complainant, claimed several reliefs, as listed in paragraph 12 of the complaint, alleging number of deficiencies, as well as unfair trade practice, as if the opposite parties have committed so, in selling a refrigerator, which failed to serve its purpose, despite report also, they have failed to rectify the same.

3. The opposite parties, though have received the notices, failed to appear before the District Forum, contested the case, resulting an exparte order on merit dt.5.10.2009, which is under challenge.

4. The complainant, though claimed a total sum of Rs.65000/- towards compensation, and a sum of Rs.29000/- towards refund, the District Fora, taking into the value of the refrigerator, and the alleged deficiency in service, coupled with unfair trade practice, ordered the opposite parties to pay only a sum of Rs.29000/-, with interest thereon at 12% p.a., from 7.9.2009, alongwith compensation of Rs.20000/- with cost of Rs.1000/-, as per the order dt.5.10.2009, which is impugned.

5. From this Commission, notice has been sent to the complainant/ respondent, and as directed the appellants/ opposite parties also have taken notice to the complainant. But, the respondent/ complainant has not appeared before this Commission, whereas sent a detailed letter, reiterating the stand taken by him, before the District Forum, informing subsequent events taken place, viz. the Execution Petition, as well as interim stay by this commission.

6. Admittedly, the opposite parties have not filed any objection/ written version, though had an opportunity to challenge the averments in the complaint, and therefore, at present, we cannot say, what would be their defense, to nullify the case of the complainant. From the fact, that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator alone, it cannot be termed as unfair trade practice, or in the absence of the documents, whether the alleged defects were noticed, within the period of warranty, on report if any, whether the opposite parties have rectified the defects or not, it may not be possible for us to say empathetically, that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service, warranting compensation, as granted by the District Forum. Therefore, despite the objection raised by the complainant, we are inclined to remit the matter back, for fresh disposal, according to law, giving an opportunity to the opposite parties to file the written version, then deciding the case on merit, since an opportunity should be given to the complainant also, who is the native of Coimbatore, and no prejudice would be caused.

7. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.211/2009 dt.5.10.2009, and the mater is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal, according to law, giving opportunity to the opposite party.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 15.10.2010, on which date, the opposite parties shall file their written version positively. The District Forum is directed to dispose the case, since the complainant claims to be a senior citizen, within two months from the date of filing of the written version. The mandatory deposit, made by the complainant shall remain, till the disposal of the complaint, and it shall abide the result of the disposal of the case. The District Forum, is directed to issue notice to the complainant, since he was not represented before this Commission, for the above said hearing.