BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.167 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.46 OF 2012

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD

Between:

M.Vamsi Krishna

S/o M.Prabhakara Sharma,

Aged about 25 years, R/o Revenue Colony,

Beside Boxapati Building,

Labbipet, Vijayawada (A.P).

…Appellant/Complainant

And

Mr.Mohd.Muneer,

Prop: The Furniture House,

6-2-30, Adjacent to Skyline Building,

Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad – 4.

…Respondent/Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant        :         Sri S.A.V. Ratnam

Counsel for the Respondent    :         Served with notice.

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member

Monday, the Twentieth day of December

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

1)       This is an appeal filed by the Complainant aggrieved by the orders dated 31.07.2012 of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad made in C.C.No.46 of 2012 in dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution of the case.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that Complainant booked Sofaset comprising of one 3 seater sofa, 2 single chairs with round cane netting 4 mm width, leather cushions and center table with glass and for a consideration of Rs.25,000/- and accordingly paid Rs.15,000/- as token advance on 20.06.2010 and agreed to pay the balance amount at the time of delivery.   

4)       The Opposite party assured to deliver the item within 20 days i.e., on or before 10.07.2010 but failed to stick to his promise and on repeated requests, the OP handed over the goods at Hyderabad to Navata Road Transport on 28.08.2010 to be delivered to the Complainant at Vijayawada.  As the Opposite party failed to provide necessary documents to the transport authorities, the furniture was seized by the ‘Commercial Tax Department’ at Vijayawada on 29.08.2010.  For which, complainant made efforts to comply with formalities and the consignment was handed over to him by levying penalty of Rs.1,000/-.

5)       That, after removing the rapping of the goods, the Complainant was surprised to see that the sofaset was different from that of the one selected by him.  The measurements, material and the colour did not tally.  There was no glass to the centre table.  When complained to the Opposite party requesting to take back the goods, there was no response.  Complainant also got issued notice on 22.01.2011 but the Opposite party failed to respond, which amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the furniture together with interest @ 24% p.a. from 29.01.2010; to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony; to reimburse Rs.1,000/- paid to Commercial Tax department and also to grant costs of the complaint.

6)       The notice sent to the Opposite party appears to have been returned and hence the matter was posted for causing publication, which the Complainant failed to.  Upon which, the orders which are impugned in this appeal are passed.  Subsequently, the Complainant seems to have filed an interlocutory application seeking to set aside the dismissal order and to restore the complaint to its file, wherein, vide orders dated 11.07.2013, the forum below passed orders dismissing the application relying on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Others v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and others, 2011 (IV) CPJ-35 (SC) = 2011 (9) SCC 541.

7)       The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

8)       It is needless to state that the forum below dismissed the complaint at the stage of service of notice.  Without service of notice on the other side and without giving opportunity to other side, it would not be possible to pass any orders.  And on 12.04.2012 the forum below had permitted the Appellant to cause publication of the notice on the Respondent in “neti mana desham” and posted the matter to 09.05.2012.  On 09.05.2012, the Appellant remained absent, hence, the matter was posted to 25.06.2012.  Again, on 25.06.2012, the Appellant remained absent, hence, matter was posted to 31.07.2012.  As the appellant again remained absent on 31.07.2012, the impugned orders have been passed.  We need to state that there is no irregularity or error in passing such an above order.  However, we may state that this order denies the legitimate claim of the Appellant to have his complaint restored and pursued against the Respondent.  Hence, in the interest of principles of natural justice and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter for disposal afresh.

9)       In the result, we allow the appeal and remand the matter back to the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad for disposal afresh by giving opportunity to the Appellant to cause publication of the notice, within reasonable time, as expeditiously as possible, but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

PRESIDENT                  MEMBER

Dt. 20.12.2016

​