BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 352/2021
M/s Woodenstreet Furnitures Pvt., Ltd., No.240/A, 1st Floor, 27th Main Road, Above Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sector-2, HSR Layout, Bengaluru 560 102, Karnataka. Head Office: M/s Woodenstreet Furnitures Pvt. Ltd., No.102, Luhadia Tower, Ashok Marg, C – Scheme, Jaipur 302 001. (By Sri P.S. Magaji) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
1. | Dr. Dattatray Prabhu, S/o Arun Prabhu, Aged about 37 years, | …Respondent/s |
2. | Dr. Sonali Prabhu, W/o Dr. Dattatreya Prabhu, Aged about 35 years, Both are residing at R/at G-2, Global Pride Apartment, Behind Hotel Foodland, Near Mangalore City Corporation, M.G.Road, Mangalore – 01. Dakshina Kannada, Karnataka. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.01.2021 passed in CC.No.25/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore.
2. The appellant/Opposite Party submits that the Opposite Party is a very leading furniture manufacturing company having good reputation and they supply all over India accordingly, they have received Order from the complainant for the furniture to his house/apartment. Accordingly, they have sent furniture to the tune of Rs.7,68,012/- and they are all fitted to the complainant’s house. By rendering good services by qualified team, inspite of that the complainant alleged manufacturing defects and accordingly, they have replaced 16 furniture out of 28 furniture. Inspite of that by alleging deficiency in service/unfair trade practice the complainant/ respondent has filed a complaint before the District Commission for refund of the entire amount paid towards the furniture.
3. After admission, the District Commission had issued notice to the Opposite Parties, but, the notice was not served on them. For that the District Commission placed them exparte and passed an Order in favour of the complainant directing the Opposite Party/s to pay a sum of Rs.7,56,081/- with interest at 6% along with compensation and costs.
4. Being aggrieved the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard both parties.
5. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that after filing the complaint, the notice was not served on them for which the District Commission placed exparte and passed an order and they came to know the same only after the final order passed by the District Commission. They have valid grounds to urge their defence, hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the Order Sheet, we noticed that after admission, the District Commission had issued notice against the Opposite Party. At the initial stage on 20.03.2020 notice was issued against the Opposite Party/s which was returned unserved as ‘Opposite Party was left’ as per the endorsement given by the postal department. Subsequently, the District Commission provided an opportunity to take steps against the appellant. Accordingly, the complainant had taken process under RPAD for issuance of another notice. On 23.09.2020 the District Commission again sent notice to the Opposite Party/s, but the same was returned unserved with an endorsement that appellant ‘refused to receive notice’ and other two address covers returned as unserved. Accordingly, the Opposite Party placed exparte on that day itself. Whereas in the Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant submits that the notice issued by the District Commission was not served on them but that cannot be accepted because the notices issued by the District Commission as per office note dt.23.09.2020 is as refused. They have intentionally refused to receive the notice issued by the District Commission. Hence, the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal is not appreciable. As such, we found that there are no any valid grounds to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
