BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 5th day of March, 2015
First Appeal No.13/2014
Kusum Desai, D/o (late) Nagarji Desai,
C/o Park Guest House,
No.1, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry. …………… Appellant
Vs.
1. Mani Electronics,
No.271/2, Maraimalai Adigal Salai,
Puducherry,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
2. M/s Sri Murugan Services,
Authorised Samsung Service Centre,
No.14, Anna Nagar Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Puducherry – 5.
3. M/s Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd.,
A/25, Ground Floor, Front tower,
Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate Suites,
New Delhi – 44. ……………. Respondents
(On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.46 of 2013, dated 19.08.2014)
Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 2013
Kusum Desai, D/o (late) Nagarji Desai,
C/o Park Guest House,
No.1, Goubert Avenue,
Puducherry. …………… Complainant
Vs.
1. Mani Electronics,
No.271/2, Maraimalai Adigal Salai,
Puducherry,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
2. M/s Sri Murugan Services,
Authorised Samsung Service Centre,
No.14, Anna Nagar Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Puducherry – 5.
3. M/s Samsung India Electronics P. Ltd.,
A/25, Ground Floor, Front tower,
Mohan Co-Op Industrial Estate Suites,
New Delhi – 44. ……………. Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT.K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
FOR APPELLANT/O.P:
Thiru William Jerome Vincent
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
Exparte
O R D E R
(By Hon’ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.46/2013, dated 19.08.2014.
2. The complainant therein is the appellant herein and the opposite parties are respondents in this appeal.
3. The appellant/complainant has preferred the said complaint against the opposite parties/respondents claiming a compensation of Rs. 28,400/- being the cost of air-conditioner unit together with interest; a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh for compensation for deficiency in service; and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
4. The case of the complainant was that she has purchased a Samsung one tone Split Air Conditioner on 26.05.2012 from the first opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.28,400/-. The said air conditioner was covered by a Comprehensive Warranty for 12 months and Compressor Warranty for five years as per the warranty card issued to her from the date of purchase. From the date of purchase and installation of the air conditioner, water was leaking from it and it was set right by the service personnel of the 1st opposite party on the complaint of complainant. However, the cooling condition gradually gone down and became ineffective. Though it has been brought to the knowledge of the O.Ps 1 and 2, they were informing the complainant that they would set right the defect, but, it was not fully set right. Further, the air conditioner went defective and stopped functioning. In spite of several requests, it has not been rectified. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint before the District Forum for claiming the amount mentioned above.
5. The District Forum took note of the complaint and ordered notice to the respondents/opposite parties, but, they did not turn up. Thereupon, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1 and documents were marked. The matter has been listed to the subsequent date. On that date, since there was no representation on behalf of the complainant and her counsel, the complaint was dismissed for default. Hence, the present appeal is laid against the order of dismissal passed by District Forum.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum has passed the order of dismissal disregarding the admitted facts and the documents placed on record on behalf of the complainant. He has also contended that the order of the District Forum is unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. He has also submitted that though the respondents/opposite parties were absent and were set exparte before the District Forum, without considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/ complainant and the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, has dismissed the complaint. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ complainant, the order of the District Forum has to be set at not.
7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant's counsel, the grounds of appeal and the order of the District Forum.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, when there is ample evidence before the District Forum, namely, the complaint, evidence of CW1 – the complainant and the documents, the District Forum ought not to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no representation on behalf of the complainant and her counsel on a particular date. We understand that if the complainant has not been examined herself as witness and documents have not been filed on her behalf, when the complainant was absent on a particular date along with her counsel, either the District Forum would have adjourned the matter to a later date for the presence of the complainant or her counsel or could have weigh the evidence recorded already along with the documents. Especially when the respondents have been set exparte and when there is nothing on record against the complainant, the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum is absolutely, in our view the least to say, is incorrect. Without giving sufficient opportunities to the complainant, the complaint seems to have been dismissed. The Consumer Protection Act is a welfare legislation which has to be considered in favour of the consumer especially when there is evidence in favour of the consumer. Therefore, in our view, the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum cannot be allowed to be sustained.
9. In the result, the order of the District forum made in C.C.No.46/2013 dt. 19.08.2014 is set aside and the appeal stands allowed. We remit the matter back to District Forum, Puducherry to consider the matter after hearing the counsel for the appellant/complainant and also the materials available on record. The District Forum is directed to take up the matter on hearing on 26.03.2015 and dispose the matter at the earliest, considering the fact that the appellant/complainant is a senior citizen. The counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum to make his further submissions.
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2015
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
