State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parminder Through Its vs Abhishek Thakur S/O. Late Sh Kartar ... on 29 July, 2025
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: SC/2/FA/109/2025
Date of Presentation: 08.05.2025
Order reserved on: 09.07.2025
Date of Decision: 29.07.2025
.................................................................................
Parminder, Proprietor of M/s Pamtech, 210, 209 Partap
Complex, Partap Market, New Delhi-110067.
....... Appellant/Opposite Party.
Versus
Abhishek Thakur S/o Late Sh.Kartar Singh, R/o V.P.O. &
Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, H.P.
....Respondent/Complainant
.................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Mr.Partap Singh Thakur, Member.
Hon'ble Ms.Yogita Dutta, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellant: Mr.Munish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr.Apoorv Bharti, Advocate.
.................................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur
SC/2/FA/109/2025
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
O R D E R:
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned District Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Consumer Complaint No.454/2024 titled Sh.Abhishek Thakur vs Mr.Parminder, whereby complaint filed by the complainant was allowed and the opposite party was directed to install the equipments and replace the sub standard parts of Cinema Horn, Amplifier, Mid Speaker, L/R Speaker and perforated matt fabric within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of damages suffered by the complainant. Opposite party was further directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- besides litigation costs of Rs.15,000/-.
2
Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025 Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, case of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2023, complainant placed order with the opposite party for sound system for his cinema hall at Shahpur, District Kangra including Cinema Horn, Amplifier, Mid Speaker, L/R speaker and perforated matt fabric. The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party for the same. The opposite party assured the complainant that he will deliver the said articles very soon and will send some professionals for installation of the said equipments. After receiving the payment, the opposite party started ignoring the complainant. In the month of July, 2024, the opposite party sent the ordered equipment to complainant but any professional to install the said equipment was not sent by the opposite party. Also the products delivered to the complainant were of sub-standard quality. The said act and conduct of the opposite party amount to 3 Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025 deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The Notice was issued to the opposite party by learned District Commission, but the opposite party refused to accept the said notice and none appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite service and as such, learned District Commission proceeded with ex-
parte order against the opposite party vide order dated 25.11.2024.
4. Thereafter, the complainant led evidence in support of his pleadings.
5. After hearing the learned counsel of the complainant, learned District Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/opposite party has preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
7. Arguments heard on behalf of the parties and perused the record of case file carefully. 4
Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025
8. Learned counsel of the appellant has submitted that the appellant/opposite party was proceeded ex-parte before the learned District Commission and impugned order is an ex-parte order. He further submitted that the appellant/opposite party has also filed an application for placing on record some documents by way of additional evidence and prays that application be allowed. He further submitted that on receiving the delivery of order, the complainant without taking prior consent from the appellant assembled/ installed the said products. He further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. He further submitted that impugned order is bad in law and prays that appeal of the appellant be allowed.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent/complainant has submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite party 5 Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025 for purchasing the sound system alongwith other products and this fact has not been denied by the appellant/opposite party. He further submitted that on receiving the above said amount, the appellant/opposite party has supplied the defective products to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. He further submitted that application for additional evidence filed by the appellant cannot be allowed for want of pleadings. He further submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays that appeal of the appellant be dismissed.
FINDINGS
10. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/opposite party on the ground that the impugned order is an ex-parte order, as the appellant/opposite party was proceeded ex-parte before the learned District Commission on 25.11.2024. 6
Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025
11. The plea of the appellant is that the impugned order is passed without effective service upon the appellant, as the appellant/opposite party never received any notice issued by learned District Commission and was not aware about the proceedings of the case. It is further alleged that report on the acknowledgement that service was refused by the appellant is false and without any proof. The appellant has no knowledge that who had received summons on behalf of the appellant.
12. The aforesaid plea of the appellant is reproduced as under:
"iii). That the impugned order has been passed without effective service upon the appellant. The appellant never received the notice issued by the learned District Commission below and was not aware of the proceeding. The report that service was refused by the appellant is false and without any proof." 7
Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025
13. Perusal of Registered A.D. alongwith acknowledgement indicates that service of summons was refused on 04.11.2024. Learned District Commission on receiving the said acknowledgement with the aforesaid report has proceeded with ex-parte order against the appellant/opposite party on 25.11.2024 which is reproduced as under:
"25.11.2024 Present: Mr.Apoorav Bharti, Ld. counsel for complainant.
Notice sent to the opposite party received back undelivered with remarks 'refused'. As service to the opposite party is complete. No one is appearing on behalf of opposite party. Case called time and again. It seems that opposite party is not interest in contesting this complaint. Case be taken after lunch.
Taken up after lunch (2.35 PM) Present: As above.
Case called again. None appeared on behalf of opposite party. Case list stands exhausted. Hence, opposite party is proceeded against ex-parte. Now, to come up for adducing complainant's evidence on 13.12.2024.
Member Member President"
8 Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025
14. Thereafter, the complainant led evidence and after hearing the complainant, the impugned order dated 21.02.2025 was passed against the appellant/opposite party by learned District Commission.
15. The dispute hinges around, whether the learned District Commission below while passing the ex- parte order dated 25.11.2024 ascertained the factum that who refused the service of summons.
16. There is nothing on record which could suggest that refusal was made on behalf of the appellant/opposite party, his employee or agent or any other person who is authorized to do so or any mischief has been carried out by the appellant/opposite party or third party in this connection.
17. Since, the appellant/opposite party was proceeded ex-parte on 25.11.2024 and has never participated in any of the proceedings before the learned District Commission below. In these circumstances, to 9 Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025 meet the ends of justice, the ex-parte order as well as impugned order are required to be set aside.
18. Therefore, appeal of the appellant/opposite party is allowed and the ex-parte order dated 25.11.2024 and the consequential impugned order dated 21.02.2025 passed by learned District Commission against the appellant/opposite party are set aside.
19. Consequently, the case is remanded back to learned District Commission with the direction to decide the matter afresh as per law. Learned District Commission on receiving the copy of order is directed to issue fresh notices to the parties to proceed with the matter further in accordance with law.
20. Since the matter has been remanded back to learned District Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, therefore, the application filed by appellant/opposite party for placing on record documents 10 Sh.Parminder Versus Sh. Abhishek Thakur SC/2/FA/109/2025 by way of additional evidence stands infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
21. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
22. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of District Commission alongwith certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Partap Singh Thakur Member Yogita Dutta Member Veena 11