ORAL ORDER
Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Adv. Umesh Mangave on behalf of the Appellants/original Opponents and Adv. Nilesh Patil on behalf of the Respondents/original Complainants. Perused the record.
[2] This appeal filed by the Appellants/original Opponents takes an exception to an order dated 24/5/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Forum’ for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.107 of 2008, Shri VenkateshwaraPublicWeighBridge, Chavanwadi and Others Vs. Samsung Weigh Scale Pvt. Ltd. and Others. It is a case in respect of defective weigh-bridge, more precisely digital indicator supplied with the said weigh-bridge by the Appellant/Opponent No.1, Samsung Weigh Scale Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supplier’ for the sake of brevity). The Forum, accepting the contention of the Respondents/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainants’ for the sake of brevity) directed the Appellants/original Opponents No.1 and 2 to cure the defect in the weigh-bridge or in the alternative to refund to the Complainants an amount of `2,25,000/- towards price of the weigh-bridge together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. as from 19/8/2006 and also further directed the Opponents to pay to the Complainants an amount of `10,000/- by way of compensation towards mental agony besides costs of `1,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the Opponents preferred this appeal.
[3] In the instant case, as earlier recounted, the dispute relates to digital indicator supplied to the Complainants by the Supplier on 14/11/2006. Said digital indicator was further examined and inspected by an Inspector from Weights & Measures Department on 18/11/2008 and found it in order. Further, after the consumer dispute arose and a consumer complaint was filed, the Forum appointed Mr. Narendra Singh Mohan Singh, Assistant Controller of Weights & Measures, Kolhapur as a Court Commissioner who submitted his report on 17/8/2010. Documents pertaining to earlier examination by an Inspector from Weights & Measures Department as well as the report dated 17/8/2010 submitted by the Court Commissioner, supra, cannot be read in evidence since they were not tendered in evidence and they are not the admitted documents. These are important piece of evidence to settle the dispute. Under the circumstances, Learned Advocate for the Respondents/Complainants submitted that the Complainants may be given an appropriate opportunity to lead evidence as per provisions of Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) and to which the Learned Advocate for the Appellants/Opponents also agree. We find that in the interest of justice and to settle the dispute justly and properly, both the parties must be given an opportunity to lead evidence. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. Impugned order dated 24th May, 2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaint No.107 of 2008 is hereby set aside.
3. Consequently, complaint is remitted back to the District Forum in the light of the observations made earlier in the body of the order for de-novo trial from the stage of leading the evidence.
4. Both the parties are given an opportunity, on their appearance, to lead their respective evidence on affidavits as per provisions of Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and thereafter the dispute shall be settled according to law.
5. Both the parties shall appear before the District Forum on 06th November, 2012.
6. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.
7. Amount deposited by the Appellants as per proviso to Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall be refunded to the Appellants.
8. Copies of this order shall be sent to the District Forum as well as be supplied to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced and dictated on 26th September, 2012
