ORDER ON ADMISSION MATTER   

21.06.2017

Upendra Jha Member.

                           This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the District Forum Purnea in complaint case no.03 of 2015 by which the appellant is directed to give a new mobile set to the respondent complainant to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as litigation cost within two months as also against the order dated 24.08.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 09/2016 by which warrant of arrest has been issued against the appellant.

 2.                   On being noticed, the respondent has filed written notes of arguments. Heard the parties on admission matter.

3.                    Grounds taken in appeal are that M/S Vijay Telecom Purnea has not been made a necessary party. The appellant is not responsible  to repair the mobile set after expiry of warranty period without cost. The  respondent Lava International was not heard. The  entire  responsibility  goes to him. Appellant is simply a service centre for repairing of mobile. Written statement was not considered by the District Forum. The appeal be admitted  for  hearing.

4.        The counsel  for the respondent submits that the order under appeal  was sent to the appellant by registered post dated 08.06.2016 served to the appellant. The Manufacturer  has suppressed this fact. There is no 30 days  delay in filing appeal by 07.07.2016.  Virtualls, There is delay of 85 days which cannot be condoned in the light of the judgment by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam Vs.  R.B.  Bhavaneshwari  reported  in 2009 (2) Scale 108. The appellant has not stated anywhere that the free copy of the order has not been received by him. So, the appeal is fit to be dismissed on limitation matter itself. This appeal is not maintainable because the appellant has challenged  two orders dated 28.04.2016 in complaint case no. 03/15 as well as the order dated 24.08.2016 in Misc. case No 09/16 So, two  different orders have been  challenged, which is not maintainable under law. The appellant has not produced any evidence that defects in handset has been removed. The appellant has not produced any evidence in support of written statement that the appellant has not discharged his duty. Hence the appeal be dismissed at admission stage itself.   

5.  Having considered the grounds  of appeal, explanation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and submission of the respondent, as well the order passed by the District Forum. It appears  that no sufficient and satisfactory  explanation has been given by the appellant  for condoning  85 days  delay in filing appeal. The  opposite party- appellant contested the complaint case. He should had to get information  regarding the decision of the complaint  case. Whether  free copy of  order was received  by the appellant or not, is not mentioned. Two orders have been challenged  in this appeal  order dated 29.04.2016 in complaint case no. 03/2015 and order dated 24.08.2016 in ( Execution) Misc. Case No. 09/16. It does not seem to be maintainable. There is no evidence in support that the mobile set was repaired free of cost during  warranty period. For the reasons  stated above, the appeal is dismissed at admission stage itself.

S.K. Sinha                              Renu Sinha                                         Upendra Jha

President                                Member(F)                                         Member(M)

Mukund