This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Vinod Kumar, against the order dated 02.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.312 of 2018.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant purchased a mobile phone for Rs.2,000/- on 11.03.2015 and the same allegedly stopped working and was taken to service centre/opposite party No.2 on 16.05.2015.  Respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.450/- for repair despite the fact that mobile phone was in warranty period. 

3.      Aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.1492/2015 requesting for a new mobile phone of the same make and to pay compensation.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties and during the hearing of the case some compromise took place between the parties according to which opposite parties agreed to pay Rs.2,000/-.  The petitioner did not accept and wanted that his complaint may be decided on merits. The District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, (in short ‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 04.5.2018 dismissed the complaint as under:-

“5.  It is not out to place mention here that on record is a compromise which is signed by the complainant and counsel for OP-1 but on 09.09.2017, the complainant appeared and stated that counsel for OP-1 took his signatures on the compromise under misrepresentation and the complainant is not ready to accept the amount of Rs.2,000/- as mentioned in the compromise.

6.     However, subsequently the complaint failed to file his affidavit in evidence despite giving opportunities and the complainant also did not turn up to attend the further hearing of the case.  Accordingly, right of the complainant to file his affidavit in evidence has been closed.

7.     Thus, we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by way of any cogent evidence and there is no merits in the complaint.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed.”

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal bearing No.312 of 2018 before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 02.08.2018 dismissed the appeal.

5.      Hence the present revision petition.

6.      Heard the petitioner who is present in person.  It was stated by the petitioner that mobile phone was defective and was under the warranty period, however, the mobile phone was not replaced nor any compensation was granted.  The District Forum did not provide sufficient opportunity to the complainant to produce evidence as the Forum was pushing for a compromise to which the complainant did not agree.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner.  It is seen that the matter was about to be compromised and the complainant had also signed the offer given by the opposite parties for payment of Rs.2,000/-, the cost of the mobile phone.  It is also seen from the order of the District Forum that the District Forum gave many opportunities to the complainant to file the evidence.  However, complainant did not produce any evidence in support of his complaint.  Obviously, District Forum had no option, but to dismiss the complaint as no evidence was produced by the complainant and the assertion of the complainant made in the complaint could not be verified in the absence of the evidence.  The State Commission also did not find any merit in the appeal as the case of the complainant was not substantiated due to absence of any evidence, however, the State Commission could have remanded the matter to the District Forum for taking evidence and deciding the case on merits.

8.      In the light of the above discussion, with a view to end further litigation in this matter involving a mobile phone purchased for Rs.2,000/- only, I deem it appropriate to order as follows:

Order

          The revision petition is partly allowed and it is ordered that the complainant would be entitled to get Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) from the opposite party No.1 as per the compromise already entered between the parties and opposite party No.1 shall pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. The orders of the fora below are accordingly set aside. If the complainant is not ready to accept the compromise, he is permitted to file his evidence before the District Forum within a further period of six weeks with copy to opposite parties at a cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.  In this situation, order of the State Commission dated 02.08.2018 and order dated 04.5.2018 of the District Forum shall stand set aside and the District Forum shall proceed with the case after accepting the evidence filed by the complainant to decide the matter on merits after compliance of the deposit of Rs.5,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

9.      No notice has been given to the opposite parties before passing of this order as it would unnecessarily burden both the parties with further litigation expenses.  However, if opposite parties feel aggrieved by this order, they can approach this Commission.