Haryana

StateCommission

A/39/2016

BLENZOR INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NIKLESH COOLING OIL REFINERIES - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

Remand Appeal No:   39 of 2016

First Appeal No  :      360 of 2015

Date of Institution:      22.04.2015

Date of Decision :       27.04.2016

 

Blenzor (India), 1-A, First Floor, Sharda Mansion, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Road, Dadar East, Mumbai-400014, India now existing at 27 Ismail mansion Dr. Ambedkar Road, Mumbai-400014, India through its Partner Sh. Santosh Sawant.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      M/s Niklesh Cooking Oil Refineries, 14^th Mile Stone, NH-65, Village Batta, Tehsil & District Kaithal through its partner Kamal Shorewala, s/o Sh. Prem Chand Shorewala, Resident of Kaithal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

2.      Canara Bank, Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

                                                                                                                  

Present:              Shri Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri S.S. Momi, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2 (performa).

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of opposite party No.1 is directed against the order dated July 28^th, 2014, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’), in Complaint No.111 of 2013.

2.      The brief facts of the present case are that M/s Niklesh Cooking Oil Refineries-complainant (respondent No.1 herein), purchased a ‘FFS Machine’ suitable for packing one litre oil vide invoice dated March 9^th, 2013 (Exhibit C-3) from Blenzor (India)-appellant, for Rs.4,52,840/-. As per advertisement given by the appellant the packing speed of the machine was 35 packs per minute. However, after installation, it was found that the machine was packing only 15 packs per minute as against promised 35 packs. The complainant approached the appellant but to no avail. Hence, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

3.      The appellant/opposite party did not contest the complaint and they was proceeded exparte.

4.      On appraisal of the evidence available on the record, the District Forum accepted complaint directing the appellant as under:-

“……….we allow the complaint exparte and direct the OP no1. To replace the defective machine with new one with the production capacity of 35 pouches instead of 15 in one minute. However, it is made clear that if the said machine with production capacity 35 pouches in one minute is not available with the OP No.1, then the OP is liable to refund the cost of machine i.e. Rs.4,85,000/-  to the complainant and further to pay Rs.2200/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within a period of 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of communication of this order till its realization.”

5.      Against the above said order, the appellant filed First Appeal No.360 of 2015 before this Commission. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was delay of 238 days in filing of the appeal.

6.      Aggrieved thereof, the appellant filed revision petition No.2610 of 2015 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

7.      Vide order dated 3^rd December, 2015, the revision petition was allowed, delay was condoned and the case was remanded to this Commission for deciding it afresh.

8.      Since the appellant was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum, as such it could not contest the complaint on merits. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to give opportunity to the appellant to contest the complaint on merits.   

9.      Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merits. The appellant is accorded opportunity to join the proceedings. The parties shall be entitled to file reply and lead evidence etc. The District Forum shall decide the complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months, which shall start from the date of first appearance of the parties.    

10.     The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Kaithal, on 12.05.2016.

11.     Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 27.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL