Delhi

StateCommission

A/13/2016

CANON INDIA PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH GUPTA & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 13.01.2016

Appeal No.13/2016

 

(Arising out of the order dated 11.12.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 216/15 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-Central, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

 

Canon India Pvt. Ltd.,

A Company incorporated under

The provisions of Companies Act, 1956,

Having its registered office at:

7^th Flor, Tower-B, Building-5,

DLF EPITOME, DLF PHASE-III,

Gurgaon-122002 (Haryana)                                                      …..........Appellant

 

Versus

1. Naresh Gupta,

Resident of 4/9, First Floor, S.E.A.

Saraswati Marg, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi-110005.

 

 

2. M/s. Canon Service Centre,

Franchise-Mehak Peripherals,

106, Padma Tower-I,

Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008.                  ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

O. P.  Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S. C. Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

 O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against order dated 11.12.2015 passed by District Forum-Central awarding Rs.2,999/- towards cost of printer and Rs.5000/- for pain, mental agony suffered by the complainant/respondent due to non attending the complaint.

 

2. The grievance of the appellant/OP is that complaint was admitted on 03.08.2015.  Notice was directed to be issued to OP for 20.08.2015.  Despite that the copy of summon sent to OP contains the date of issue as 29.07.2015.  He wanted to make much out of fact that notice has been issued before the admission of complaint.

 

3. We are unable to impress ourselves by the arguments.  The next date of hearing has been correctly mentioned as 20.08.2015 in the summon, copy of which is available at page-39 of the appeal. Simply because a mistake occurred in date of issuance, did not cause any prejudice to the OP.

 

4. Another grievance of the appellant is that case was decided hurriedly. The complaint filed on 03.08.2015 was decided on 11.12.2015 i.e. after little more than four months.  It is not clear as to what wrong with it. The Consumer Protection Act envisages disposal of the complaint within three months. This is more so when the OP was exparte.

 

5. Counsel for appellant did not miss to mention  that even period of 30 days for filing written version was not allowed in as much as complaint was admitted on 03.08.2015 and notice was sent for 20.08.2015.  Again the argument is misconceived. Neither OP was proceeded nor right to WS has been closed on the said date. The case was kept in awaiting for 11.09.2015 and by that date time period of 30 days had completed.

 

6. No grievance can be made against drawing of presumption of service by non receipt of undelivered registered notice.         Section 28-A, Consumer Protection Act provides for such presumption.

 

7. Over and above all the matter is petty. In all the appellant has to pay Rs.7,999/-.  They must have spent much more than that in filing the appeal.  Such trivial cases are not worth being carried in appeal.

 

8. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.  The appeal is dismissed in limini

 

9. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost and one copy be sent to the District Forum for information.

.

(O. P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                                (S. C. Jain)

Member

​