Orissa

StateCommission

A/414/2015

Sony India (P) Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajit Yadav - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Pati & Assoc.

26 Nov 2020

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
ODISHA, CUTTACK
 
First Appeal No. A/414/2015
( Date of Filing : 19 Aug 2015 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 20/07/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/31/2015 of District Jharsuguda)
 
1. Sony India (P) Ltd.
A-31. Mohan Co-op. Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi.
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ajit Yadav
Qr. No. C-27, MCL Colony, Bandhbahal, Banharpali, Jharsuguda.
2. The Prop. Sri Balaji Traders
Main Road, Jharsuguda.
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT
  Dr. Smarita Mohanty MEMBER
 
PRESENT:M/s. R. Pati & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1
 M/s. R.K. Pradhan & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1
Dated : 26 Nov 2020
Final Order / Judgement

      Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

2.      Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is present but he submits that he has no instruction from the client to proceed with the case.

3.          The appellant was the OP whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

4.      Learned learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the complainant has purchased a smart phone from the OP but the smart phone went out of order. It is further alleged by the appellant that he has brought the hand set for repairing to an authorized service centre two times but defects could not be solved. So, he filed the complaint.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP No.1 appeared through serving engineer  whereas OP No.2 was set ex-parte. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum, without understanding the facts and materials available in record, passed a cryptic order against the appellant and sufficient opportunity was not given to the appellant and decided the case on merit.

6.      Since, the respondent has no instruction from his lawyer,  he did not participate in the hearing.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order. It appears from the impugned order that no proper opportunity was given to the present appellant to produce the materials but the case of the complainant only was disposed of on merit. So, we are satisfied   that reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant to produce the materials. Hence, we remand the matter to the learned District Forum by setting aside the impugned order and direct  that the learned District Forum would do well by asking both the opposite  parties to file written version and give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce the evidence and dispose of the same within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 14.12.2020 and take further instruction.

          The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.                 

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[ Dr. Smarita Mohanty]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.