BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2023
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 872/2023
1. | M/s LG Electronics India Pvt., Ltd., A-24/6, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044, By its Special Power of Attorney Holder, Mr.K.Alok Iyangar, S/o Sri RKS Iyangar, Aged about 49 years, Working as Customer Service Department, M/s LG Electronics India Pvt., Ltd., Mangalore-73. (By Sri Rajesh.A, Advocate) | ……Appellant |
V/s
1. | Mr.Riyaz Ahammed, S/o Sri Saleem Saheb, Aged about 36 years, C/o M/s Shakthi Stone Cutting and Polishing Co, Jumma Masjid Petrolium, NH- 66, Gundmi Sasthana, Brahmavar-576 226. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | M/s Mahesh Enterprises, Holy Family Complex, NH-66, Brahmavar-576213, Udupi District, By its Authorized Representative. | |
ORDER ON ADMISSION
BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Opposite party being aggrieved by the order dated 13.04.2022 passed in CC.No.25/2023 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard from Counsel for appellant. The Counsel for appellant submits that the Complainant had filed the complaint before the District Commission against the Respondents/OP alleging that the Refrigerator in question is not cooling properly and not maintaining its proper temperature since from 15.06.2022, even registering the complaint for Redressal, the OPs have neither rectified the defect nor given any property service. Hence, the refrigerator is become useless. The counsel further submitted that even the receipt of notice dated 09.12.2022 the OP-2 not rectified the defect and replied to the notice. Hence, the complainant has approached the District Commission under the provisions of Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019.
3. Further, the counsel for appellant submitted that, after registering the complaint by the complainant, District Commission has issued notices to the Respondents. Further, submitted that 1st Respondent has shown the address of the appellant of Delhi Branch Office situated at New Delhi without giving the Local Jurisdiction Branch Office. Further, the District Commission has placed the appellant has exparte on 28.03.2023 as there was no representation on the side of the appellant. Further submitted that by receiving the information from the Office of the Delhi of the appellant the representative appeared before the District Commission on 13.04.2023 by filing the application for recall of exparte order dated 28.03.2003. But, the District Commission rejected the application as the statutory periods of 45 days are over. Aggrieved by this order appellant preferred in appeal before this Commission.
4. Perused the appeal memo order passed by the District Commission we noticed that the complainant has filed complaint on 17.02.2023. After hearing, notices were issued by the District Commission and same was served on 03.03.2023 on Appellant/OP-2. However, appellant failed to appear on 28.03.2023 and hence place exparte. Then the case was posted for affidavit evidence of R-1/ Complainant. On 05.04.2023 Respondent-1/Complainant filed evidence affidavit and case was posted for interrogatories on 13.04.2023. On the same day Respondent-1 filed interrogatories and also area service Manager of LG Electronics/Appellants filed IA u/o 9 Rule 7 r/w Sec.151 of CPC to set aside the exparte order. However, the District Commission has rejected the application as the statutory periods of 45 days are over.
5. Perused the order sheet, we noticed that notice was served on appellant on 03.03.2023 then from 03.03.2023 the statutory period of 45 days was over on 17.04.2023. However, the District Commission has rejected the application on 13.04.2023 which is not just and proper. The statutory period of 45 days was not completed as per the entry in the order sheet. i.e., from the date of service of notice. The District Commission should have provide one more opportunity to the appellant as there is 4 days period was remaining. From the service of notice i.e., 03.03.2023 to 13.04.2023 only 41 days are completed.
6. Hence, considering the facts and discussions made here we are of the opinion that, the order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper hence it requires to set aside and an opportunity has to be provided to take their defense with respect to the allegations made against the appellant by the complainant. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order passed by the District Commission dated 13.04.2022 passed in CC.No.25/2023 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission with the direction to set aside the order of exparte and take version of OP-2 on next date of hearing and disposed the matter on merits expeditiously.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
SP*
