Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/112/2023

Poorvika Mobiles Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Proprietor & 2 Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.K. Jemini, S/o T.V. Tamilarasan - Opp.Party(s)

S.Muthuselvam

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

F.A. No.112 of 2023

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.44 of 2019 dated 17.06.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C.,Namakkal.

Wednesday, the 29^th day of March 2023

1. Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited

    Rep. by its Proprietor

    No.151/74, 735/75

    Ground Floor, RCC Building,

    Trichy Main Road

    Namakkal Town & District.

 

2. Registered Office

    Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited

    Rep. by its Proprietor

    No.30, Arcot Road

    Kodambakkam

    Chennai – 24.

 

3.  Corporate Office

     Poorvika Mobiles Private Limited

     Rep. by its Proprietor

     No.32, AGR Platina

     Developed Plot NP

     Ekkattuthangal

     Chennai - 32                                                .. Appellants/    Opposite Parties

- Vs –

T.K. Jemini

S/o. T.V.Tamilarasan

D.No.2/158-A

Reddipatti Village & Post

Sedhamangalam

Namakkal District.                                             .. Respondent/Complainant

  Counsel for Appellants /Opposite parties       :  M/s. S. Muthuselvam

 

  Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant            :   M/s. T.K. Manoharan                                                                       

                The Respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint.  Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt. 17.06.2022 in         CC. No.44 of 2019.

                This petition came before us for hearing finally, today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the appellants, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

        1.  The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.  The respondent is the complainant.

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that while he was studying Diploma in Mechanical in PSG College, Coimbatore, on 04.05.2019, he bought a Nokio Cell Phone from the 1^st Opposite party, for a consideration of Rs.15,949/-.  From the day of purchase, the cell phone was not working properly and very often it got hanged.  While the defect was reported to the 1^st opposite party, the 1^st opposite party updated the phone and returned to the complainant.  But again the complainant faced the same problem.  When it was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party, he advised the complainant to contact Nokia Care Service Centre, Coimbatore.  Even after the service of the cell phone by the Service Centre, the problem of hanging persisted.  Hence, the complainant requested for replacement of the cell phone but the same was refused by the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complainant issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on 13.08.2019 and to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties on 10.10.2019.  The opposite parties sent reply notices, with false allegations.  Alleging that the opposite parties have sold a defective cell phone to the complainant and also failed to rectify the defect in the new cell phone, a complaint was filed claiming to return the cost of the cell phone and compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant.

        3.     Though notice was served, the Appellants/opposite parties failed to appear before the District Commission and hence they were set ex-parte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order directing the opposite parties, to take back the cell phone and return the cost price of Rs.15,949/- and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, to the complainant, along with a sum of Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost.   Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties, praying to set aside the order. 

        4. It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties that the mobile phone was sold to the complainant with necessary invoice and warranty card.  The complainant has failed to approach Nokia Mobile Service Centre to rectify the defects.  Further, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the manufacturer and the Service Centre.   There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellants and that they have got valid defense and a fair chance of succeeding the complaint. If the ex-parte order is not set aside, they would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, the appellants/opposite parties sought to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

        5. When the case had come up before this Commission on 24.03.2023, after hearing the submission of both sides, this Commission had felt that there is some force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and therefore in order to give a chance to the opposite parties to agitate their right on merits, was inclined to allow this appeal by remanding the matter to the District Commission, to dispose of the case on merit.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties, in not appearing before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 28.03.2023. Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law.    

        6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Namakkal in C.C.No.44 of 2019 dt.17.06.2022, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Namakkal, for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

        Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Namakkal on 28.04.2023, for taking further instructions.  On which date itself, the opposite parties shall file their vakalat, written version, proof affidavit and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, within three months from the date of appearance, according to law and on merits.  

        The amount deposited by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                             R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/March/2023