Kerala

StateCommission

A/588/2017

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIDEOCON AURANGABAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

K V SOMARAJAN NAIR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJAN BABU

01 Nov 2018

ORDER

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,  SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 588/17

 

JUDGMENT DATED:01.11.2018

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.135/2016 on the file of

CDRF, Pathanamthitta order dated 31.12.2016)

 

PRESENT:

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN	:	PRESIDENT
SRI. T.S.P MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RANJIT  R.	:	MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1.	P. Vivek, Deputy Manager, Videocon Industries Ltd, No.39/6481, B-South Pointing Building, 1st Floor, Ravipuram, M.G. Road, Cochin – 682 015.
2.	The Manager, Pournami Home Gallery, Sankaramangalam Complex, MC Road, Kulanada, Pathanamthitta – 689 503.

 

(By Adv. Rajan Babu)

 

VS

 

RESPONDENT:

 

1.	K.V. Somarajan Nair, Rajasree, Manthuka P.O., Kulanada, Pathanamthitta – 689 503.

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

 

SRI. RANJIT  R.          :   MEMBER

 

 

          Opposite parties 1 and 2 in CC No.135/16 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta (in short) District Forum, have filed this appeal challenging the Order, passed exparte, against them directing to issue a Videocon Krypton
(V 50 FG) smart phone or to pay its value of Rs.8,990/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety) with cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the Order, failing which the complainant was allowed to realise the sum ordered (Rs.8,990/- + Rs.5,000/-) with 10% interest from the date of Order.

          According to the complainant seeing an advertisement in the newspaper he purchased an air conditioner from the 2^nd opposite party.  As per the advertisement company had offered a smart phone worth Rs.8,990/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety) absolutely free on purchase of 5 star air conditioner having value of Rs.29,990/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety).  Complainant impressed by the free offer of phone with the air conditioner purchased that product paying its value.  But the free gift, i.e. smart phone, was not given to the complainant.  2^nd opposite party assured that it would be given within three days.  Though in the advertisement the free offer made was providing a  Videocon Krypton (V 50 FG) smart phone with the purchase of 5 star air conditioner for the value of Rs. 29,990/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety), the bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party showed that the free gift was Sansui mobile phone S 351 Black.  Since this free gift as advertised was not delivered, complainant filed complaint in the lower forum.

          Opposite parties after accepting notice did not appear and file version, and they were set exparte. 

          On the basis of evidences of the complainant, consisting of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A2 produced by him, the District Forum passed the impugned Order.

          The appellant has filed the appeal with petition to condone delay of 72 days in filing the appeal.  Notice was issued in that petition and respondent/complainant thereupon appeared and filed objection.  Petition for condoning delay was considered along with the appeal, since it arise from an exparte Order. 

          There was no representation for appellants consecutively on the posting dating, appeal and petition for condoning delay. 

          On perusing the records, we do not find any merit in the cause canvassed by appellants for condoning delay and also for their default in not appearing and filing version before the forum after receiving notice.

          In the petition for condoning delay it is stated that the staff of the branch office of the 2^nd opposite party who received the Orders passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum did not inform the head office in time and that caused 72 days delay in filing the appeal.

          The respondent has stated that there is delay of more than 100 days in filing the appeal and there is no valid reason for condoning delay.

          Perusing the date of despatch in the order of the lower forum produced it is seen it was despatched on 27.02.2013.   According to the appellants it was received by them only on 02.03.2017.  No evidence is produced that delivery was delayed. The appeal is also seen filed only on 12.06.2017.   It is clear that there is more than 100 days delay in filing the appeal. 

          Sufficient cause or reason is also not stated in the petition to condone the delay other than canvassing a lame excuse that the staff of branch office after receiving the Order failed to intimate head office in time.

          We are not satisfied with the grounds stated by the appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 

Petition to condone delay is dismissed and the appeal is rejected.

 

S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN	:	PRESIDENT
T.S.P MOOSATH	:	JUDICIAL MEMBER
RANJIT. R	:	MEMBER

SL