Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/130/2023

The Manager, Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan, S/o Ganesan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S.Muthuselvam

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 3.

 

BEFORE    Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE  R. SUBBIAH             ::      PRESIDENT                       

                   Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL                         ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.130/2023

 

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.29/2019 dated:10.08.2022 on the file of the

D.C.D.R.C., Ariyalur)

 

TUESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

The Manager,

Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited,

No.36, K SK V Complex,

Market Street,

Ariyalur Town,

Ariyalur District..                                                       ..  Appellant / Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

Mohan,

S/o. Mr. Ganesan,

2^nd Cross Street,

Min Nagar,

Ariyalur Town,

Ariyalur District.                                                        .. Respondent  / Complainant.  

 

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite party     : M/s. S. Muthuselvam

 

Counsel for the Respondent  / Complainant  : -

 

This appeal coming before us on various dates and for final hearing today on 31.03.2023 and on hearing the arguments of appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the open Court:-

ORDER (Open Court)

Thiru.R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                       

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

2.         For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ariyalur.

3.         The case of the respondent before the District commission is that he was working as a Manager in DUARA Finance Corporation Ltd.   On 30.06.2019, he had purchased A 505 Galaxy A50 2019 Samsung mobile phone from the opposite party.   There was a problem in charging the said mobile phone.   Hence on 17.08.2019, the complainant handed over the said mobile phone to the opposite party for service.  But again Sim Fort was not functioning properly. Therefore once again, the complainant has given the mobile phone for service.  Even after the service of mobile, there is no clarity in the camera.   When he approached the opposite party, he was informed that the cell phone has to be changed.  On 26.08.2019, the opposite party received his mobile phone stating that they would replace the same with a new one.   But as stated by the opposite party they have not given a new mobile phone.   The complainant was made to run from the pillar to post more than 10 days.   Finally, the complainant had issued notice dt.05.09.2019 and the opposite party has sent a reply with vague allegations but did not come forward to comply with the demands made by the complainant.   Therefore, the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging deficiency in service claiming the complaint mentioned new mobile phone, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.   

4.         After filing of Vakalat for the opposite party, the Counsel for opposite party has not filed his written version before the District Commission.  Hence, the opposite  party was set exparte and the complaint was allowed directing the opposite party to replace the mobile phone with a new one with the same model and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and there is no order as to costs.

5.         Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits.

6.         The Learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that opposite party appeared before the District Commission in the year 2019.  The case was posted for filing written version of the opposite party and the entire legal files were transferred from the branch office to the Head Office at Chennai during the corona pandemic and the same was misplaced with other papers.  Only after receiving the order copy, the appellant knew that the version has not been filed.    Therefore, The non-appearance of the appellant / opposite party is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the reasons beyond the control.   Further, the appellant is a whole sale mobile dealer and while the customers expressed their expectations on a specific mobile or any specific feature, the appellant offer mobile models as per the customers expectations.   If there is any manufacturing error, the complainant can approach the manufacturer service centre with the invoice and a warranty card.   Furthermore, the manufacturer has not been added as a party.   Therefore, on this short ground alone the complaint ought to have been dismissed.   Thus, the opposite party is having a fair chance to succeed the complaint.    Thus, he prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

7.         We have heard the submissions on the side of appellant and perused the materials placed on record. 

8.         Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for appellant, we are of the considered opinion that there is some force in the arguments of the appellant/ opposite party and therefore a chance may be given to the 1^st opposite party to agitate their right on merit.   Though there is a lethargic attitude on the part of the opposite party in appearing before the District Consumer Commission, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing a sum of Rs.3,000/-  as cost to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Registrar, State Commission, Chennai, which condition was also complied with.   Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

            In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur in C.C. No.29/2019 dt.10.08.2022 and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Ariyalur for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

The parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Ariyalur on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions on which day itself the opposite party shall file his Written version, proof affidavit and documents if any.  The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law on merits.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the order passed in the original complaint.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                    R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

KIR/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023.