BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.1104/2013 against  C.C.No.125/2012,District Forum, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Between:

M/s Kadevi Industries Ltd.,

A1-2, Electronic Complex, Kushaiguda,

Hyderabad, represented by its

Authorized signatory Sri Mukesh

S.Shah.                                                                                                                                     ..Appellant/Opp.party No.1

And

1. M/s A.P.Motronix Pvt. Ltd.,

# 3-18-3, Pragathinagar

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,

Represented by Managing Director

Viz Sri D.Prashanth Reddy.

1. M/s Dumpala Engineering Company

A Propreitory concern, having office

At # 3-18-3, Praghatinagar,

Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,

Represented by its Proprietrix

Smt D.Swaroopa Reddy.                                                                                                               Respondents/complainants

1. M/s Kirloskar Electric Co. Ltd.,

Unit No.XXV, P.B.Road,

Gabbur, Hubli

Karnataka 580 028,

Rep. by its Director.                                                                                                                                                                             Respondent/OP 2

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s P.S.N.Murthy

Counsel for the Respondents:M/s K.S.A.Narasimha Rao-R1 and R2

                                        R3 served.

QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, PRESIDENT.

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST,

TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice GopalakrishnaTamada, President.)

***

The opposite party No.1 filed this appeal questioning the order dated 15-11-2012 in C.C.No.125/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents/complainants to hand over the old defective DG set 25 KVA Escorts Sound Proof Diesel Generator to the opposite party No.1 and take acknowledgement to that extent and thereafter directed the appellants herein to refund an amount of Rs.2,36,000/- jointly and severally along with interest @ 6% p.a. till realization from 08-3-2012 i.e. date of Ex.A10 notice together  with Rs.3,000/- towards legal expenditure.

        It may not be necessary for us to go into the various facts and the pleadings for the reason that the order passed by the District Forum is an exparte order. At para 4 of the order, it was observed by the District Forum that though notice on opposite party No.2 was served, it has not chosen to appear and notice sent to the first opposite party returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ and in those circumstances, they were set exparte.

        Having regard to the fact that the order was passed without hearing the appellant/opposite party No.1 and now this appeal is preferred by opposite party No.1 stating that it could not appear before the District Forum, beyond the reasons which are not under control and in those circumstances, an opportunity has to be given to the appellant/opposite party No.1 to contest the said matter.  Further we are of the considered view that any dispute between the parties has to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities, hence this matter requires remand.

        Accordingly this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum for re-consideration of the entire material but however as there are latches on  the part of the appellant by directing the appellant to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to the respondents/complainants i.e. M/s AP Motronix Private Limited rep by Mr. D.Prashanth Reddy and to M/s Dumpala Engineering company, rep. by Smt.D.Swaroppa Reddy.  On ascertaining the fact that costs are paid, the District Forum shall restore the C.C. and permit the appellant herein to file their written version, chief affidavit etc.,  and thereafter proceed with the hearing of the C.C. at the earliest within a period of 3 months in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides.

At this juncture, it is brought to our notice that opposite party No.2 approached this Commission and filed F.A.I.A.No.1908/2013 in F.A.(SR)      4798/2013 against the very same order passed by the District Forum and the said application was filed to condone the delay of 225  days in presenting the appeal and a Division bench of this Commission was pleased to dismiss the said I.A.  It is true that the said order was passed on technicalities and in those circumstances, opposite party No.2 also may participate in the proceedings on account of remand of the matter to the District Forum.

.

                                                                        Sd/-PRESIDENT.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

                                                                        Sd/-MEMBER.

JM                                                                     Dt.18-8-2014.