Heard learned counsel for both parties.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant is that he being an advocate purchased an “AMARON” battery from OP No.1 on 27.6.2006 vide Sl.No.2501106370341 to install the same for uninterrupted power supply to his office. The OP No.2 is the manufacturer. The battery successfully given back up for a continuous period of three hours till April, 2007. Thereafter, the battery lost its potency and gradually it started giving low back up. The complainant in the first week of May, 2007 lodged complaint with OP No.1. After receiving the complaint a technician of OP No.1 visited the office of the complainant on 16.5.2007 and checked the battery but could not remove the defect. After a fortnight the complainant again visited the premises of OP No.1 to lodge a complaint, but the OP not listened to the request of the complainant. As such, the complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned Forum below with following prayers:-
“xxx xxx xxx
It is therefore respectfully prayed that your Honour may graciously be pleased to allow this complaint petition and both the opposite parties may be directed:-
- To give a new inverter shield battery of 100 ah/12V.model of Amaron Company to the complainant.
- To pay compensation of Rs.5000/-Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant towards inconvenience, mental agony, harassment etc caused to the complainant;
- To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation;
- Any other relief(s) to which the complainant is entitled as per law and equity;”
4. The OPs did not appear in the case though received summon and were set ex parte.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District Forum directed the OPs to give a new defect free Amaron shield battery 100Ah/12V. model and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation. Challenging the impugned order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
6. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants appeared in the Forum below but could not file written version and the appellants were set ex parte. So, he fairly submitted that if the matter is remanded, he would have an opportunity to contest the matter to produce all documents. So, he submitted to remand the matter for fresh hearing.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and the complainant has produced all the documents to defeat the case of the OPs, but the OPs remained absent. According to him with much inconvenience the complainant has fought the case. He submitted that if at all the case is remanded, the complainant should be adequately compensated.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. Learned counsel for both parties agreed to appear before the learned District Commission, Angul on 27.4.2022 on which date OPs shall file written version subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. On payment of the cost, learned District Commission shall accept the written version filed by the appellant and hear the matter afresh giving a chance of hearing to both the parties. Since the matter is an old matter of the year 2008, we direct the learned District Commission to dispose of the matter as early as possible.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
