Delhi

StateCommission

FA/896/2013

HITACHI HOME & LIFE SOLUTION INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. DINAKAR SAKUL - Opp.Party(s)

29 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:29.09.2015

 

First Appeal- 896/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 07.06.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 252/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

Hitachi Home and Life Solutions (India) Ltd.,

9^th Floor, Abhijeet, Mithakhali Six Roads,

Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat.

•  

Versus

1. Dr. Diwakar Sukul,

R/o 10/144, New Raj Nagar,

Ghaziabad, UP.

 

2. M/s Croma, Aditya City Centre,

Plot No.C/GH-3,

Vaibhav Khand,
Indrapuram,

1.  

                                              ….Respondents

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge has been made to ex-parte judgement dated 07.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) by which the Ld. District Forum has directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.95,715/- along with interest @ 9% and also awarded Rs.30,000/- compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony in Complaint Case No. 252/2013.
2. The respondent No.1 herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum has filed a complaint alleging therein that he had purchased two Air Conditioners (split) of 2 ton on 27.05.12 from respondent No.2/OP No.2 and got the same installed at his residence.  However, the ACs’ were not working properly as such the matter was reported by the respondent No.1/complainant to respondent No.2/OP No.2.  When the matter was not resolved, the respondent No.1/complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum wherein the aforesaid exparte judgement has been passed.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant/ OP No.1 was never served with the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum.  It is alleged that wrong address of appellant No.1/OP No.1 was given before the Ld. District Forum, as such no notice was served upon it and the impugned judgement has been passed without hearing the appellant/OP No.1.  On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant has contended that the appellant/OP No.1 was duly served before the District Forum and some official on its behalf also appeared before the District Forum. In support of submissions made, respondent No.1/complainant has referred to the order dated 15.5.13 of the Ld. District Forum wherein the presence of Counsel for OP has been marked.  Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant has also referred to order dated 15.4.13 of Ld. District Forum as per which it is recorded that the notices had been issued to the OP at the correct address.  It is submitted that appellant intentionally did not appear before the District Forum. 
4. On the above submissions of Ld. Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 has submitted that there were two OPs before the District Forum i.e. appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein i.e. OP No.1 and OP No.2 before the District Forum. It has been mentioned on 15.5.13 that OP had appeared.  It is not clear as to which OP had appeared.  It is stated that the appellant/respondent was never served before the District Forum. 
5. After some arguments, Counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant states that complainant has no objection if impugned judgement is set aside subject to heavy costs.
6. Considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for appellant/OP No.1 and also no objection given by the Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned ex-parte judgement subject to payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant No.1.  Ld. Counsel for appellant/respondent No.1 has agreed for the aforesaid costs.
7. We also mention that the Counsel for the respondent/complainant was agreeable for arriving at the amicable solution if the actual costs of Air Conditioners is refunded to respondent No.1/complainant.  We also spent enough time for settlement.  However, Counsel for the appellant/OP No.1 has refused and states that the appellant wants to contest the case on merits.
8. With the consent of parties, case is reminded back to the District Forum.  Parties shall appear before the District Forum on 30.11.15.  On the said date, appellant shall give costs of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent No.1/complainant and also file its written statement.  Thereafter the District Forum shall further proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
9. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
10. FDR, if any, deposited by the appellant be released after completing due formalities.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

       

sa