State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Phoolchand Rathore vs Rathore Electronics Baradwar on 28 July, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Appeal No.FA/12/127
Instituted on 09.03.12
Phoolchand Rathore, S/o: Shri Buddhu Rathore,
R/o: Village - Durpa, Tah. & Thana - Baradwar,
Dist. JANJGIR‐CHAMPA (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Rathore Electronics Baradwar,
Pro. Yashwant Kumar Rathore,
R/o: Village - Durpa, Tah. & Thana - Baradwar,
Dist. JANJGIR‐CHAMPA (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: ‐
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: ‐ Shri Mukesh Sharma, for appellant.
Shri Nawal Tiwari, for respondent.
ORAL ORDER Dated: 28/07/2012 PER: ‐ HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This is an appeal of the complainant whose complaint case No.14/2004 has been dismissed by order dated 10.02.2012 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir‐Champa (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) holding that the complainant has not been properly verified and no material has been filed by the complainant in support of the complaint and necessary documents were also lacking.
// {PAGE } //
2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Colour TV 20'', Mixer, cooler and VCD from the shop of the OP / respondent. Guarantee was given by the OP against any defects in the products, but no bill was provided and merely on different paper slips, name of sold articles were mentioned with signature of OP and it was assured that later on proper bill would be provided. Later on when again bill was demanded then no bill was provided and false assurances were given again and again. Cooler and TV etc. sold by the OP became defective after sometime and on the assurance of the OP the products were handed over to it for repairing. But thereafter neither the products were returned nor any amount was refunded. Thus, not only defective products were sold, but the defects were also not cured which amounts unfair trade practice.
3. OP in the written version refuted the allegations. It has denied that any product was ever sold by it to the complainant neither any product was sold nor was returned to it and also no slip under his signature was given by it to the complainant. It has been stated that as the complainant and the OP are belonging to the same caste and are brothers also and the OP was having small repairing shop and on the request of the complainant, guarantee was given by the OP at the time // {PAGE } // of purchase of some articles from the shop of another person, but because some amount was not paid by the complainant, and the amount was demanded, so a false complaint has been lodged.
4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it dismissed the complaint as aforesaid.
5. During the course of hearing of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant, at the very outset submitted that by inadvertence the complainant could not sign the complaint and was presented before the District Forum. The OP has also not controverted the statement of the complainant in the form of affidavit. It has further been submitted that opportunity should be granted to both parties, so that these formal defects can be rectified. Learned counsel for the OP/ respondent objected this prayer and submitted that when a defective complaint was filed before the District Forum then it was liable to be dismissed and if it has been dismissed then the District Forum has not committed any mistake and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
6. We have given our serious consideration on the aforesaid contentions made by the parties.
// {PAGE } //
7. From the complaint, which is in the record of the District Forum it appears that endorsement has been made by the President of the District Forum in the margin of the complaint itself which shows that it was presented by Foolchand Rathore personally. When the complaint was presented before the District Forum personally by the complainant, then there was nothing to prevent the complainant to sign the complaint and if the complaint could not be signed then it merely appears a human error and which can be rectified. It is worth mentioning that the versions made in the complaint have been supported by the complainant in the form of affidavit and affidavit of one witness has also been filed. The OP has filed written version and raised certain objection but no affidavit in support thereof has been filed. It was necessary if some allegations against complainant are made in the written version and the OP was serious in pressing such allegation, then such allegations were required to be supported by some evidence might be in the form of affidavit.
8. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to provide opportunity to // {PAGE } // the complainant to sign the complaint and similar opportunity to the OP to file affidavit in support of the written version. Thereafter the matter be decided afresh on merits within a period of 60 days. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 27.08.12. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/07/2012 /07/2012