Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/132/2019

The Proprietor, VENS Agencies, - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.Ganapathy, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. S. Saravana Kumar

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                                            BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                                        Thiru R   VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.132/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.29/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Chennai (North)

 

DATED THIS THE 31^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

The Proprietor

Vens Agencies

Total Solution for Electrical, Electronics and Computers        M/s. S.Saravana Kumar

New No.179-A, Old No.74, MS Koil Street                                 Counsel for                          

Royapuram, Chennai – 600 013                                    Appellant / Opposite party

 

 

                                                         Vs.

J. Ganapathy

S/o. V.Jaganathan

No.25/2, 4^th Street

Thiyagi Sathiyamoorthy Nagar

Manali Express Road                                                            Served called absent                                       

Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019                                    Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.27.8.2014 in CC. No.29/2014.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The  opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

 

2.  The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he purchased HIS (VENS) 600 VA Home Inverter, alongwith battery from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.15000/- on 20.10.2012.  The battery had warranty free service for one and half year from the date of purchase.  From the very beginning there was a problem in the battery.  Though  the engineer of the opposite party attended the fault, only the battery started working, but the backup lasted only for 30 minutes.  Eventhough the opposite party engineer visited the complainant place and had attended the defects it could not be rectified.  Therefore, the battery was handed over to the opposite party for rectification.   Though the complainant visited more than 30 times to the opposite party, it was informed that the fault in the battery could not be rectified.  Thus alleging negligence the opposite party, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for refund of the cost of inverter alongwith battery and to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

3.       The  Appellant/  opposite party, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, directing the  Appellant/ opposite party to rectify the defects in the inverter and to pay a compensation of Rs.23000/- alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-.    Aggrieved over the said exparte order, this appeal has been preferred by the opposite party as appellant herein.

 

4.         The Respondent, though served remained absent before this commission.  Therefore, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

 

5.       The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the defect was only in the battery and not in the inverter.  The defect was a manufacturing defect, and hence this opposite party cannot be held responsible.  The defects reported were attended every then and there.  The District Commission failed to appreciate the above facts.  The opposite party has a fair chance of succeeding the matter.  The non-appearance before the District Commission by the appellant is neither willful, nor wanton.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the matter on merit. 

 

 6.      The learned counsel for the appellant argued, that an opportunity, which was denied by the District Forum, may be given to the opposite party, by remanding the case, for fresh disposal, after setting aside the exparte order, which we are unable to deny, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.14.10.2022 we have directed the appellant/ opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the legal aid account of the State Commission on or before 28.10.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint back to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  

 

7.       Since the Respondent /complainant remained absent before this commission, District Commission shall issue notice to the Respondent/ complainant for their appearance.

 

8.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.29/2014 dt.27.8.2014, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Chennai (North), for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Chennai (North) on 1.12.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellant/ opposite party shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within 3 months from the date of appearance, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall abide the order of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                             R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT