Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/589/2022

M/s Info Solutions Co., Rep. by its CEO R.Prabakaran, 16-1/2, K.K.Salai, Saligramam, Chennai-93. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Emerson Network Power (India) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Head, Olympia Platina, 6th Fl - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. D.Prasanna

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

             BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                          Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.589/2022

(Against order in CCSr.NO.966/2019 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (South)

 

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023   

 

M/s. Info Solutions Co.,

Rep. by its CEO  R.Prabakaran

16-1/2, K.K.Salai,                                                              M/s. D. Prasanna

Mathiazhagan Nagar                                                              Counsel for

Saligramam, Chennai – 600 093                                      Appellant / Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1. Emerson Network Power (India) Private Limited

    Rep. by its Branch Head

    Olympia Platina, 6^th Floor

    No.33-B, South Phase,

    Guindy Industrial Estate, Guindy

    Chennai – 600 032       

 

2. Emerson Network Power (India) Private Limited

    Rep. by its Assistant Manager Legal

    Plot No.C-20, Road No.19,                                      

    Wagle Industrial Estate

    Thane (W) Maharashtra                                        Respondent/Opposite parties

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had rejected the said complaint before taking into file. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.21.10.2022 in CCSr.No.966/2019.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

                                                         ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.   This appeal has been filed by the appellant as against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) dt.21.10.2022 in CCSr.No.966/2019, by rejecting the  unnumbered complaint on the ground that the returns made by the registry had not been complied with. 

 

2. The complainant’s company had filed a complaint before District Commission, alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties in supplying UPS.  The Registry of the District Commission, Chennai (South) had returned the complaint for complying with certain defects.  Since the complainant had not come forward to rectify the defects, the case was posted before the District Commission.  As per the impugned order of the District Commission, the complainant did not turn up inspite of granting sufficient opportunities.  Therefore, the District Commission by its order dt.21.10.2022 had rejected the unnumbered complaint.  Against the said rejection order, the complainant is before us now as an appellant.

 

3. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the non-appearance and the non-compliance of the returns are neither willful nor wanton, and thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the complaint against the opposite parties.Irrespective of the submissions made by the appellant, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.21.10.2022 in CCSr.No.966/2019, and permitted to restore the unnumbered CCSr. on file, so that the complainant will have a chance of prosecuting the case on merits. The District Commission is directed to permit the complainant, to comply the returns and on compliance, the District Commission shall decide the admissibility of the complaint, according to law on merit.Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

 

4.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) in CCSr.No.966/2019 dt.21.10.2022, and District Commission is directed to permit the complainant, to comply the returns made by the Registry.

          The District Commission, Chennai (South) is directed to issue notice to the appellant / complainant for appearance.   The complainant is directed to comply the returns within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, and on compliance, the District Commission shall decide the admissibility of the complaint,  according to law on merit   No order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

 

  R VEKATESAPERUMAL                                                      R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT