BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.720/2013 against C.C.No.03/2012, District Forum, Nalgonda.
Between:
M/s Videocon Appliances Ltd.,
15th KM Stone, Chitegaon,
Tal-Paithan, Aurangabad District,
Maharastra-431105.
Presently M/s Value Industries Ltd.,
14th KM Stone, Aurangabad, Paithan Road,
Sitegaon Tal-Paithan,
Aurangabad, Maharashtra-431005
Represented by Sri Biskunda Devanand. ..Appellant/
Opposite party No.1
- Sri D.Seshagiri Rao S/o.Rama Krishna
Rao, aged about 50 years,
Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.6-3-1271,
Savarkarnagar, Ramagiri,
Nalgonda Town. Respondent/complainant.
- M/s Chitra Electronics % TV Service
Centre, represented by Proprietor,
H.No.5-5-31/A, Prakasham Bazar,
Nalgonda Town. Respondent/O.P.2
Counsel for the Appellant :Mr J.Kumaresan
Counsel for the Respondents: - Respondents served
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.
SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Oral Order (As per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalaKrishna Tamada, President)
***
The opposite party No.1 before the District Forum, Nalgonda is the appellant and he preferred this appeal against the order dated 17-4-2012 in C.C.No.03/2012 whereby the District Forum directed it to pay a sum of Rs.26,050/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant, D.Seshagiri Rao, purchased a Videocon Refrigerator from Chitra Electronics and T.V. Service Centre i.e. opposite party No.2 on 30-8-2006 by paying a sum of Rs.6,800/-. Opposite party No.2 gave a warranty card for the said refrigerator, for a period of six years, from the date of purchase. When the said refrigerator gave trouble and was not functioning properly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.2. The representatives of opposite party No.2 visited the complainant on 14-4-2011 and informed the complainant that the compressor has failed and they would substitute a new compressor. However, as they failed to replace the said compressor, the complainant got issued a notice on 02-6-2011 and immediately thereafter the opposite parties deputed a technician by name, Mustafa to the house of the complainant and accordingly he visited the house of the complainant on 16-6-2011 and replaced the compressor and charged an amount of Rs.1,050/-. Even after replacement of the new compressor, it failed and the same was again informed to the opposite parties and one Reyaz, technician, visited the house of the complainant on 27-8-2011 inspected the refrigerator and found that the compressor was not working and promised to replace the same. Despite the same as the said compressor was not replaced, the complainant was constrained to approach the District Forum and filed the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to fix a new compressor to the Refrigerator of the complainant and pay Rs.27,050/- as compensation and costs.
The District Forum issued notices to the opposite parties and notice sent to opposite party No.1 returned with an endorsement, “refused to receive the cover”.
Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that he is only a dealer and the onus is mainly on opposite party No.1 and he does business on commission basis and he cannot be held responsible.
On an overall consideration of the factual matrix of the case, the District Forum came to the conclusion that opposite party No.2 is not responsible and thus fixed the liability on opposite party No.1 and directed opposite party No.1 i.e. appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.26,050/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and it further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
As stated supra, the said order is challenged by opposite party No.1 i.e. Videocon Appliances Limited.
Despite the fact that notice is served on the respondent/complainant, he has not chosen to appear before us. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said order passed by the District Forum is an exparte order and as such it requires remand. The other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said Videocon Appliances which was in existence till 03-4-2008 had changed its name and place of business and it has become Value Industries Ltd., and its address has changed from 15th KM stone, Chitegoan, Tal-Paithan, Aurangabad to 14th KM stone, Paithan Road, Sitegaon Tal Paithan, Aurangabad and in those circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, it cannot be said that there is notice to the appellant.
We are unable to appreciate any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The District Forum has categorically observed that it issued notice to opposite party No.1 and the said notice was returned by the postal department with an endorsement ‘refused to receive the cover’. In those circumstances, it shall be deemed that the notice has been served.
The learned counsel for the appellant also tried to impress upon us that even after filing of the complaint, the technician belonging to the appellant herein approached the complainant and rectified the mistake. We are unable to appreciate the said submission, if really it is so, the respondent/complainant would not have approached the District Forum. The appellant ought to have approached the District Forum and contested the matter by bringing the said facts to the notice of the District Forum. In the absence of that, we cannot accept the said submission. Apparently from a perusal of the complaint and the proceedings, it is clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellant which comes within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Accordingly we see no merits in this appeal and this appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.21-3-2014.
