STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Appeal No. 500 of 2009)

Reeta Sachdeva w/o Sh. Rajesh Sachdeva, H.No. 1056, II^nd Floor, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

 ….…Appellant

V E R S U S

1.  Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., 4^th Floor,Dakha House, 18/17, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005,through its Managing Director.

2.  Standard Teletronics, Showroom No. 1049, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.

3.  Salora International Ltd., D/13/4, Okhla Industrial Area, Ph-II, New Delhi, through their Managing Director.

4.  Salora International Ltd., SCO No. 327, II^nd Floor, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh.

5.  R.T. Outsourcing Services Ltd., D-158, Okhla, Phase-I, Delhi-110020

6.  R.T. Outsourcing Services Ltd., SCO-23, Sec. 18-D, Chandigarh.

.…..Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for the appellant.

                Sh. Vipin Chander, Engineer, on behalf of                                respondents No. 3, 5 and 6.

                Sh. Munish Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4.

                Respondents No. 1 and 2, exparte.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.                This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.08.2009, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which the complaint was accepted and OPs No. 1, 3 and 4 were directed, to repair the mobile phone and deliver the same, to the Complainant (now appellant), within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2.                The facts, in brief are that the Complainant purchased one Sony Ericsson Mobile Phone, from OP No. 2 vide Bill dated 26.1.2009 for her personal use. Right from the beginning, the phone was not functioning properly and when the matter was reported to OP No. 2, she was directed to approach the Service Centre of OP No. 1 i.e. OP No. 3 and 4.  OP No. 4 was contacted and it formatted the programme, of the phone and returned the set, on the next day.  Again, it started giving problems, and automatically, got switched off, in the first week of February, 2009. OP No. 4, was again contacted, and the set was repaired by it and returned, after 10-12 days.  It was further stated that the Complainant, was made to visit OP No. 4 time and again, for the repair of defective mobile phone. Ultimately, it became totally dead and non-functional. The set was given to OP No. 4 on 2.3.2009 and a Job Card Annexure C-4 was issued. It was further stated that she made several visits, to OP No. 4, to get back the handset, but in vain. It was further stated that under these circumstances, the complainant had to purchase, another mobile phone on 10.3.2009, as in the absence of mobile phone, a lot of hardship was being caused to her.  She also wrote a written complaint to OP No. 4, to replace the defective mobile handset, but, no action was taken by the OPs. It was further stated that the acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency in service and indulgence, into unfair trade practice.

3.                When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only).

4.                The OPs were duly served, but they did not turn up despite due service of notice, and, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

5.                The complainant led evidence, in support of her case.

6.                After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the District Forum passed the order, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order.

7.                Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant for modification of the order passed by the District Forum, by directing the OPs, to refund the cost of the mobile handset, purchased from them, by her alongwith interest.

8.                None appeared, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2,  accordingly they were proceeded against exparte.

9.                We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

10.             It may be mentioned here, that respondents No.5 and 6, were not parties to the complaint. They were impleaded, as parties, to the appeal, vide order dated 05.04.2010. They put in appearance, and stated that the mobile set was repaired and handed over to the complainant/appellant, in proper working condition. It may be stated here that, in the proceedings, before the Consumer Foras, the principles of natural justice, are required to be resorted to, meaning thereby, that all the parties to the dispute, are required to be given an opportunity of furnishing their version, by way of reply, and lead evidence, by way of affidavits. In the instant case, since respondents No. 5 and 6 were arrayed as parties, to the appeal, during the pendency thereof, they were deprived of the opportunity of leading evidence, by way of affidavit(s), though, they filed reply. They would be condemned unheard, if proper opportunity is not afforded to them, to lead evidence by way of affidavits. In our considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the complaint should be remanded back, to the District Forum, to implead respondents No.5 and 6 (who were impleaded as parties to the appeal), as parties to the complaint, and afford them an opportunity, to file a fresh reply, if they wanted to file any.

11.             Not only this, the District Forum, passed the order exparte, as none of the OPs (now respondents No.1 to 4), put in appearance, after service. Since, the complaint is to be remanded back, it is directed that the District Forum, shall also afford an opportunity to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, to file replies. Thereafter respondent Nos.3,4,5 and 6 shall be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, by way of affidavits. Only thereafter, it can be properly decided, as to whether, the mobile phone, which was purchased by the complainant, was properly repaired and was in a proper working condition or not.

12.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is accepted and the impugned order of the District Forum,  is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction, to implead respondents No.5 and 6, as parties to the complaint, who were impleaded, as parties for the first time to the appeal; afford an opportunity to the respondents (3 to 6), to file their replies and lead evidence, by way of affidavits, and then decide the case afresh, within a period of 3 months from 25.05.2011.

13.             The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 25.05.2011 at 10.30 a.m..

14.             The record of District Forum, be sent back immediately.

15.             Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

11^th May, 2011                                                                    Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

                                                                                                             Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg