Circuit Bench Nagpur

StateCommission

RP/13/29

Samsung Service Center Pro- Sarang Sheradrao Bijanwar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shrvani Pradip Shire - Opp.Party(s)

Shrikant Saoji

02 Dec 2013

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR 5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1 CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001

Revision Petition No. RP/13/29 (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/06/2013 in Case No. cc/13/149 of District Yavatmal)   1. Samsung Service Center Pro- Sarang Sheradrao Bijanwar F-7 Super Bazar Centrail Bank Chowk Yavatmal Yavatmal ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shrvani Pradip Shire Dahiwalkar Layout Yavatmal Yavatmal 2. Vibha Marketing Samsung Exclusive Shoppe G-1 N P Complex in front of Town Hall Yavatmal Yavatmal ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:     HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial PRESIDING MEMBER   HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER

PRESENT: Shrikant Saoji, Advocate for the Petitioner 1

ORDER   1.      This revision petition is directed against the order dted 4th of June,2013 passed in CC No.149/2013 by District Forum, Yavatmal.  This commission issued notice twice to the Respondent herein/Original complainant. The Petitioner’s advocate submits that he sent both the said notices to the Respondent by RPAD but he received acknowledgment of second notice only. He produced said acknowledgment bearing signature of Resp.today. Therefore, we are satisfied that the notice has been duly served to the Resp. She is absent. Hence we have proceeded exparte against her. Adv.of the petitioner is heard. He submitted that as impugned order is signed by only President of the Forum below and as it is not signed by another member of that Forum, it is bad in law. He further submitted that otherwise also no such final relief can be granted at the interim stage of the complaint. He also contended that the said final relief has been granted at interim stage without giving notice to the petitioner i.e. the Ori.OP Thus he urged that the impugned order may be set aside. 2.      After going through the impugned order and other papers placed before us, we find substance in the said submission. The complainant filed the complaint against the Petitioner herein for refund of the price of Mobile phone or to replace it by new one as the mobile phone purchased by her from the OP is found defective. 3.      The District Forum below, without giving any notice to the Ori.OP at the interim stage, passed impugned order and directed the Ori.OP/ petitioner to refund the price of Rs.37500/- of that mobile phone to the complainant. In our view, no such final relief can be granted to the complainant at the interim stage. Moreover, the impugned order is also illegal as it is signed only by the President of the Forum below. 4.      We are thus of the view that the impugned order can not be sustained in law and hence it deserves to be set aside. ORDER i. The Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 4/6/2013 passed in CC No.149/2013 is hereby set aside. ii. No orders as to costs.

[HON'ABLE MR. B.A. Shaikh, Judicial] PRESIDING MEMBER   [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER