1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 05.10.2016 of the State Commission on application no. 1879/2016 filed apropos its Order dated 08.10.2015 in appeal no. 1639 of 2012 vide which it had dismissed the appeal in default.  

2.       No one appears for the petitioner.

Learned proxy counsel is present for the respondents, and requests for an adjournment.

3.       A perusal of the record shows that the complainant (the petitioner herein) bought one LCD Projection TV in the name of his father from the opposite party no. 2 dealer (the respondent no. 2 herein) which had been manufactured by the opposite party no. 1 manufacturer (the respondent no. 1 herein). He had availed of financial assistance of Rs.95,000/- for paying the sale consideration. The TV carried warranty of 2 years. According to the complainant the TV repeatedly became non-functional. The opposite party no. 3 service centre (the respondent no. 3 herein) charged Rs. 16,000/- for rectifying the TV on “pretext” that the part concerned was not under warranty. When the TV once again became non-functional the service centre procrastinated on his complaint. On his continuously pursuing the matter with the manufacturer, the dealer and the service centre, functionaries of the service centre ultimately informed him that the part that required replacement will cost Rs. 8,000/-. He deposited the said amount in advance for making his TV functional, but the TV was not repaired. He then filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the manufacturer, the dealer and the service centre. The District Commission vide its Order dated 01.11.2012 dismissed the complaint. The complainant preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its Order dated 08.10.2015 dismissed the appeal in default. The complainant filed an application for restoration. The State Commission vide its Order dated 05.10.2016 dismissed the application observing that it did not have power to review its own Order. The complainant preferred the instant revision petition before this Commission.

4.       The TV was bought in 2007. The complaint before the District Commission was filed in 2010. The District Commission dismissed the complaint in 2012.  The State Commission dismissed the appeal in default in 2015. It dismissed the application for restoration in 2016. We are now in 2021.   

5.       In so far as the Order dated 05.10.2016 is concerned, vide which the State Commission dismissed the application for restoration, we find that the State Commission has not committed any error, the Act 1986 does not bestow power on the State Commission to review its own Order.

6.       In so far as the Order dated 08.10.2015 is concerned, vide which the State Commission dismissed the appeal in default, we note that as per the allegations contained in the complaint the TV was bought by the complainant after availing financial assistance. It repeatedly became non-functional. Once he was charged on “pretext” that the part concerned was not under warranty. On another occasion he had to continuously pursue the matter for a considerable period, ultimately he was told to make a deposit in advance, which he did, but the TV was not repaired. It was still lying unrepaired and non-functional when the complainant filed his complaint before the District Commission. The allegations point towards ingredients of deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) & (o) and of unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2(1)(r) of the Act 1986.

We are of the considered opinion that a case of this nature and of such specificities requires to be holistically and comprehensively examined by the forum of appellate jurisdiction in reference to the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice contained in the complaint and should preferably be decided on merit after affording reasonable opportunity to all parties.

The dispute is between an ordinary common consumer, without wherewithal, on the one side, and a manufacturer, its dealer and its service centre, with wherewithal, on the other side.

We feel it just and appropriate and in the interest of justice to request the State Commission to provide one more opportunity to the complainant to pursue his appeal.

7.       In respect of the request for adjournment made on behalf of the respondents, we do not see that any useful purpose would be served by acceding to such request. It is apparent from the record that this is a simple case of restoring an appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed in default. It is just a question of providing an opportunity of being heard. We hardly notice any point which requires to be convolutedly argued nor do we see any such intricacies involved which require extensive elaboration. The revision petition is pending before this Commission since 2017, delaying it further could compromise the ends of justice. As such the request for adjournment is politely declined.

We may add that the complainant is also not present today. However, in the given facts and circumstances it would perhaps be a travesty of justice if his revision petition is dismissed in default. We rather feel that it will be just and conscionable to dispose of the petition on the basis of the record.

In the obtaining situation no injustice would be occasioned to either side in directing the State Commission to decide the appeal on merit as per the law.

8.       Finding it just and appropriate, the Order dated 08.10.2015 of the State Commission is set aside and the appeal is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The complainant is strongly advised to conduct his appeal professionally. The State Commission is requested to afford reasonable opportunity to all parties and to decide the appeal on merit as per the law. We make it explicit that the State Commission shall remain uninfluenced by any observations in the instant Order of this Commission as may be construed to have any bearing on the merits of the case. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 17.02.2022. If for any reason any party does not appear before the State Commission on the afore-mentioned date the State Commission shall issue notice to the said party.  Considering that the TV was bought in 2007 and we are now in 2021 the State Commission is requested to endeavour to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the State Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.