BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 11th day of June, 2015
FIRST APPPEAL No. 6/2015
The Proprietor,
M/s Hellow Mobile Shop,
No.28, Market Street,
Karaikal ……………. Appellant
Vs.
R.Selvam, S/o K.Raja, C/o Udhayasankar,
F-35, Housing Board, Nehru Nagar,
Karaikal. …………….. Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C.No.1/2012, dt.25.04.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.1/2012
R.Selvam, S/o K.Raja, C/o Udhayasankar,
F-35, Housing Board, Nehru Nagar,
Karaikal. …………….. Complainant
Vs.
The Proprietor,
M/s Hellow Mobile Shop,
No.28, Market Street,
Karaikal ……………. Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
M/s S.Thirumurugan, R.N.Sivakumar,
K.Veerapillai, R.Tiroumavalavan,
Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Repondent – Served. Not appeared
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Puducherry, dated 25.04.2014 made in Consumer Complaint No.1/2012.
2. The opposite party before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the complainant thereon is the respondent herein. The parties are arrayed as per their nomenclature before the District Forum, Puducherry.
3. The complainant has filed the said complaint stated that he has purchased one Nokia-C6 mobile phone from the opposite party on 12.03.2011 by paying Rs.12,500/- under cash Bill No.7309. The opposite party provided one year warranty from the date of purchase. However, the mobile phone had some problem and to rectify the same thrice he has given it to the opposite party. In spite of it, the opposite party could not rectified the defect and hence has given the mobile with the opposite party for rectifying the same. But, unfortunately, the defect in the mobile was not rectified and returned to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant after sending the notice to the opposite party, filed the complaint before the District Forum, Puducherry.
4. Though a counsel has appeared for the opposite party initially, there was no representation later and hence the opposite party was set exparte on 21.02.2014. Thereafter, on behalf of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1 and through him Exs.C1 to C5 have been marked on his side.
6. Three points have been formulated by the District Forum, Puducherry. 1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act?, 2) Whether the mobile phone purchased by the complainant is defective in nature and the act of the opposite party causes deficiency in service? and 3) To what relief the complainant is entitled for?
7. As regards Point No.1, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As regards the 2nd point, the District Forum arrived at a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As regards the 3rd point, the District Forum finds that the opposite party has to pay Rs.12,500/- being the cost of mobile phone with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of purchase till realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
8. The present appeal is directed, as already said, against the said order.
9. Though notice has been duly served on the respondent in this appeal, he has not chosen to appear before this Commission. Therefore, the matter is taken up for hearing. We have heard the learned counsel Thiru R.Tiroumavalavane, who is appearing for the appellant. We have also perused the entire records and the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry.
10. It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the mobile phone from the opposite party on 12.03.2011 by paying Rs.12,500/-. It is also not disputed that the complainant has placed the mobile phone with the opposite party by pointing out the defects therein. It is also not disputed that the complainant had deposited the mobile again on 21.07.2011 to rectify the defects and the same has not been taken back. It is his case that the defect in the mobile phone was not rectified and handed over to the complainant in spite of his request. It is his further case that notice has been sent to the opposite party which was not replied and hence the complainant was forced to file the complaint before the District Forum.
11. While so, the opposite party who had a chance to dispute about the contents of the complaint, did not chose to file a response to the complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum has set the opposite party exparte on 21.02.2014 and after considering the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant and the documents filed in support of the complainant has found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and awarded the amount, as referred to above.
12. It is not the case that the District Forum has relied only the evidence of the complainant and the documents filed on his side without discussing about the same. The District Forum in para 7 and 8 of the order, has discussed in detail about the documents that have been filed on behalf of the complainant to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As stated already, the opposite party slept over the matter for several months without taking a chance to repudiate the statements made by the complainant in his complaint.
13. It is to be noted that even in the grounds of appeal, the opposite party has not stated the reason for not filing the reply version and did not raise any grounds about why no response has been filed in its behalf. It is stated in the grounds of appeal that the District Forum has not given the opportunity to the opposite party, who is the appellant herein, to file the response to the complaint of the complainant. It is also raised in the grounds of appeal that the District forum failed to discuss the case on merits which is factually incorrect though in one of the grounds it is stated that the complainant has failed to collect the mobile from the opposite party. We are unable to accept the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
14. Therefore, we are of the view that the opposite party/appellant has not raised any valid ground to set at knought the order passed by the District Forum. In fine, we reject the grounds raised in the appeal and also reject the contentions of the appellant.
15. In fine order of the District Forum, Puducherry, dated 25.04.2014 made in Consumer Complaint No.1/2012 is hereby confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2015
Sd/-
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
