09.11.2015

DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.01.13 passed in EA No. 39/12 by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum), the JDr  No. 1 thereof has preferred this appeal.

            It is to be considered as to whether the said impugned order is a justified one in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

                                    Decision with Reasons :

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellant had submitted that  in fact the DHr refused to accept the A.C. machine which was set at right and has taken a dilatory  tactics , and , therefore, the DHr is not in clear and clean hands and equity is not on his side. He has further submitted that it is difficult to guage and  assess the working position of the A.C. machine , as per order made in FA No. 211 of 2011 by this Commission . It has become a difficult situation and proposition for the Appellant to pay the huge amount of damage simply on the ground of refusal of the DHr to accept the A.C. machine. He has referred two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013 (4) CPR 272 (NC) and 2012 (1) CPR 44 (NC) .

            Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 has submitted there is no proof at all regarding delivery of the letters dated 25.01.2012 and 10.02.2012 , which were sent by the Appellant through Fly Express, a courier service. However, there is no dispute regarding receipt of the letter dated 19.03.2012 sent by the DHr through his Advocate to the JDrs , including this Appellant, as certified by the postal department by a letter dated 12.06.12. As there was no reply and compliance of the said letter , the DHr filed the instant EA No. 39 of 2012 before the Ld. District Forum . As the A.C. machine was not delivered to the DHr within a span of two months from the date of order in FA No. 211/2011 passed on 13.12.2011, Order No. 3 dated 17.10.12 was passed by the Ld. District Forum. Further, by Order No. 4 dated 04.12.12, it was observed that JDr approached the DHr’s office with the machine, which was not received by the DHr. Accordingly, vide the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum categorically mentioned that handover of the A.C. machine does not mean that the DHr was to receive it from the workshop of the JDr. and that it was the bounden duty of the JDr to deliver the same and reinstall it at the DHr’s residence . The JDr did not comply the same , and flouting to make compliance day by day.

            Service of letters dated 25.01.12 and 10.02.12  by the JDr No.1 to the DHr was not properly shown . In this regard, the papers of the courier do not signify delivery of the same. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order to direct the JDr to handover the A.C. machine to the DHr in workable condition at his residence and to reinstall the same. The impugned order is perfect in nature and can not be disturbed. Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. The impugned order is affirmed.