Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

RP/74/2023

Managing director, LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd., - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.Ranjith Kumar & anr - Opp.Party(s)

T.R.Kumaravel

01 Aug 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH  ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL        … MEMBER

 

Revision Petition No.74 of 2023

 

(Against the Order dated 17.05.2023 passed

in MP No.11/2023 in C.C. No.81/2022 on the file of 

the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu)

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on :01.08.2023

 

L G Electronics India Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Plot No.5, Surajpur Kasna,

Udyogvihar Road,

Greater Noida,

Uttar Pradesh – 201 805,

India.

                 ... Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party.

 

Vs.

1. Mr. R. Ranjith Kumar,

S/o. Mr. Ramanathan,

No.102-A, Green Lakes,

Plot No.7, Karanai Puducherry Main Road,

Urappakkam,

Next to SRS Mahal,

Chengalpattu – 603 210.  

                      … 1^st Respondent / 1^st Respondent /  Complainant.

 

2. Croma,

Represented by its Manager,

Nos.14 & 15, G.S.T. Road,

Tambaram-Sanatorium,

Chrompet,

Chennai – 600 047.

            ... 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Opposite party.

For Revision Petitioner / Petitioner

/ 1^st Opposite party                            : M/s. T.R. Kumaravel

 

For 1^st Respondent / 1^st Respondent

/ Complainant                                    : M/s. P. Malini

 

2^nd Respondent / 2^nd Respondent

/ 2^nd Opposite party                           :  Notice served

 

 

This Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / 1^st Opposite party to set aside the order dt. 17.05.2023 in MP No.11/2023 in C.C. No.81/2022 and came up for final hearing on 18.07.2023 and after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and 1^st respondent and after perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President. 

 

        The Revision Petitioner herein/1^st OP in C.C. No.81 of 2022 on the file of the  DCDRC, Kancheepuram @ Chengalpattu, seeks to set aside the order passed by the District Commission in CMP No.11 of 2023 in C.C. No.81 of 2022, in dismissing the said Miscellaneous Petition by imposing costs of Rs.5,000/- for default and also for the reason that, due to non cooperation on the part of OP No.1 and that of the Expert, the Advocate Commissioner had to surrender the Warrant issued for inspection of the subject-matter/Dishwasher.

 

  2. The 1^st respondent herein filed C.C. No.81 of 2022 before the District Commission by inter alia stating that he purchased from the 2^nd OP/Authorized dealer of the 1^st OP/LG Electronics India Ltd., a Dishwasher of LG Brand for a sum of Rs.55,090.50/- and a Refrigerator for Rs.92,140.50 as a festival offer on 23.12.2020 and the total consideration plus tax for a sum of Rs.1,47,231.01 was paid by him through Credit Card on the same date and that, after purchase, the Dishwasher was found to be defective as it was not in a proper working condition, but, despite repeated/futile services, the OPs failed to address the issues therein, which drove him to prefer the Complaint.

  Per contra, by claiming that the Dish Washer was in a perfectly working condition, but, it was the complainant, who did not follow the User Instructions properly, the 1^st OP took out CMP No.11 of 2023, seeking the District Commission to appoint an Advocate Commission to inspect the Dishwasher along with an Expert for filing a Report, on the strength of which, they would be able to demonstrate their defence.

  The above CMP was allowed by the District Commission on 05.04.2023  and thereafter, when it was listed on 17.05.2023, by recording that, during the hearing on 20.04.2023, the Advocate Commissioner reported that there was no co-operation from the petitioner/1^st OP as well as the Expert, that the Advocate Commissioner surrendered the Warrant on 04.05.2023 and that the petitioner/1^st OP did not turn up on 05.04.2023, 20.04.2023, 04.05.2023 and on 17.05.2023, the District Commission proceeded to dismiss the CMP for default by imposing costs of Rs.5,000/- and holding that the petition was filed only to protract the matter.  Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/1^st OP has filed this Revision.

 

      3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that it is incorrect to state that either the 1^st OP or the Expert failed to co-operate for inspection of the Dishwasher by the Advocate Commissioner.  In fact, no prior Notice was served upon them and the information with regard to the inspection by the Advocate Commissioner was given only telephonically; in such circumstances, surrender of Warrant is not a proper course and, by properly considering the above aspect, the District Commission could have given one more chance to the petitioner/1^st OP. If the order passed by the District Commission in a hurried manner is not set aside, it would cause great prejudice to the just interests of the 1^st OP and, by so pleading, learned counsel seeks for allowing the present Revision.

 

  4. Be that as it may, irrespective of the reasons assigned by the District Commission, upon considering the noting made by the District Commission against the Warrant Return that the Advocate Commissioner was unable to travel due to Medical Reason and also considering the reason that, in a matter of this nature, a report with technical details about the actual condition of the appliance would be very useful in deciding the case on merits, we are of the opinion that giving on more opportunity would only better serve the interests of justice and hence, the Revision deserves acceptance.

 

  5. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 17.05.2023, passed by the DCDRC, Kanchipuram District @ Chengalpattu, in CMP No.11 of 2023 in C.C. No.81 of 2022.  Consequently, the District Commission is directed to appoint a new Advocate Commissioner, who shall, before proceeding with the groundwork, issue proper Notice to the all concerned by clearly mentioning the date & time of inspection, whereupon, the Revision Petitioner/1st OP as well as the Expert shall duly coordinate with him at the inspection site, so that the Advocate Commissioner could accomplish the task assigned to him/her in a prompt manner. 

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                   R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT.

 

 

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/AUGUST/2023.