Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/73/2023

Lingam Stores, Rep. by its Proprietor - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.Vijayakumar, S/o K.Arumugam - Opp.Party(s)

S.Rajmahesh

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

BEFORE    Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH             ::      PRESIDENT                       

                   Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL                         ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.73/2023

 

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.33/2022 dated:26.08.2022 on the file of the

D.C.D.R.C., Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu )

 

TUESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Lingam Stores,

Represented by its Proprietor,

No.24, Krishna Nagar, 8^th Street,

West Tambaram,

Chennai - 600 045.                                                       ..  Appellant / Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

A. Vijayakumar,

S/o. Mr. K. Arumugam,

No.23, Bharathidasan Street,

Irumbuliyur,

West Tambaram,

Chennai – 600 045.                                                     .. Respondent  / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party     : M/s. S. Rajmakesh

 

Counsel for the Respondent  / Complainant  : M/s. M. Jaisingh

 

This appeal coming before us on various dates and for final hearing today on 31.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the Open Court:-

ORDER (Open Court)

Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                       

1.     The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.    

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu.

3.         The case of the respondent before the District commission is that on 23.06.2020, he went to the opposite party store and purchased some grocery items.   He obtained bill for a sum of Rs.688/- vide bill No.A-93648 from the opposite party shop.  After returning home, while he was arranging the grocery items in his kitchen, he noticed that the packing date of the thaniya packet was altered by marker as 06/20 on 03/20.  It was printed in the thaniya packet as ‘Best before 3 months from the packing date’.    On perusal, it was found that the opposite party had altered the date and sold the expiry product during the nationwide covid 19 lockdown.   Hence, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party and the opposite party had not sent any reply. Hence finally, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service claiming Rs.120/- towards the thaniya packet, Rs.1,00,120/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.   

4.         Though notice has been served on the opposite party, he did not appear before the District Commission.  Hence, the opposite  party was set exparte and the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.120/- towards the cost of 1 kg thaniya packet, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice suffered by the complainant with cost of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5.         Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.

6.         The Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that the notice was served to the appellant’s father who was running the shop.   Since he is uneducated person, he did not know the seriousness of the matter and he did not appear before the District Commission.  In the month of July, after the appellant took over the shop from his father, he received the order dt.23.11.2022 and immediately, he contacted the Counsel and thereafter the present appeal has been filed.  The appellant is having valid defence in this case.  Thus, he prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

7.         We have heard the submissions on the side of the appellant  and perused the materials placed on record. 

8.         Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice a chance may be given to the opposite party to agitate their right on merit.   Though, there is a lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite party in appearing before the District Consumer Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing a cost of Rs.3,000/- as cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, State Commission, Chennai, which condition was also complied with.   Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

            In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpattu in C.C. No.33/2022 dt.26.08.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpattu for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Kanchipuram @ Chengalpattu on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite party shall file his Vakalath, Written version, proof affidavit and documents if any.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law on merits.   

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the order passed in the original complaint.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                    R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.