State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Vidit Jain. vs Eline Authorized Service Station Of ... on 7 April, 2017
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
First Appeal No. : 39/2017
Date of Presentation: 24.11.2016
Order Reserved On : 15.03.2017
Date of Order : 07.04.2017
......
Vidit Jain s/o Shri P.C. Jain
Resident of By-pass Road, Panthaghati,
Kasumpti Shimla - 9 H.P.
...... Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Eline Authorised Service Station of Karbon A7
Through its Proprietor Hans Kuteer Khalini
Shimla H.P. - 171002.
2. Jaina Marketing & Associates D-170 Okhla
Phase -I New Delhi -110020
3. Electro Pacific through its Proprietor SCO 1024
Sector 22-B (Opposite Bus Stand) Chandigarh.
......Respondents/Opposite parties
Coram
Hon'ble Justice P.S. Rana (R) President
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Verma Member
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For Appellant : Mr. Balram Sharma Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Advocate vice
Mr. Rajesh Thakur Advocate.
For Respondents No.2&3: Ex-parte.
JUSTICE P.S. RANA (R) PRESIDENT:
O R D E R:- Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Yes. Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) No.112/2014 title Vidit Jain Versus Eline Authorized Service Station & Ors. decided on 16.08.2016 wherein Learned District Forum returned complaint to the complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum having territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Brief facts of Case:
2. Complainant Vidit Jain filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 i.e. Eline is authorized service station of Karbonn A7. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 is manufacturer of electronic goods including mobile sets carrying business under the name and style of Jaina Marketing & Associates.
It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 is distributor of Karbon mobiles. It is pleaded that complainant purchased mobile set in consideration amount of Rs.6400/- (Six thousand four hundred) on dated 18.01.2013. It is pleaded that complainant paid consideration amount by way of cash. It is further pleaded that warranty card was also issued. It is pleaded that after one month mobile set did not work properly. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 told complainant that mobile set has manufacturing defect which could not be cured and told complainant that mobile set would be sent to opposite party No.2 for repair. It is 2 Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) pleaded that opposite party No.1 kept mobile set and it is pleaded opposite party No.1 did not return mobile set to complainant despite several reminders. Complainant sought relief to replace mobile set with new one or refund Rs.6400/- (Six thousand four hundred) alongwith interest @ 18 %. Complainant also sought additional relief to the tune of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) on account of harassment, physical injury and mental agony. Complainant also sought additional relief of costs of litigation.
3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 pleaded therein that opposite party No.1 is authorised service provider of Karbon A7. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 collected mobile from complainant on behalf of opposite party No.2 and thereafter sent mobile set to opposite party No.2 for necessary repairs. It is admitted that complainant approached opposite party No.1 for repair of mobile set. It is pleaded that opposite party No.1 informed complainant that repair would be carried out by company. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought.
4. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.2 & 3 despite service. Learned District Forum proceeded opposite parties No.2 & 3 ex-parte.
3
Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017)
5. Learned District Forum returned the complaint to complainant for presentation before appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
6. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant filed present appeal before State Commission.
7. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully.
8. Following points arises for determination in present appeal.
1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal.
2. Final order.
Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:
9. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of complainant namely Shri Balram Sharma has given statement on dated 07.09.2015 before learned District Forum that complaint alongwith affidavit and documents annexures C-1 & C-2 already filed be read in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. Similarly learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 Shri Hitesh Kumar Kaundal has given statement on dated 4 Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) 08.06.2016 that version already filed be read in evidence and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.
10. In the present case it is proved on record that opposite party No.1 has denied and disputed allegations of facts mentioned in complaint. It is held that District Forum is legally competent to receive evidence by way of affidavits as per section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that complaint and version filed by opposite party did not fall within the definition of evidence as per section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is held that complaint and version falls within the definition of pleadings of parties. It is held that pleadings of parties and reception of evidence by way of affidavits relating to disputed facts are two different concepts under law. It is held that proceedings before learned District Forum are quasi-judicial proceedings.
11. It is proved on record that complainant has purchased Karbon A7 mobile set in consideration amount of Rs.6400/- (Six thousand four hundred) from Electro Pacific vide retail invoice annexure C-1 placed on record. It is proved on record vide customer receipt annexure C-2 placed on record that warranty of mobile set was given.
Opposite party No. 1 has admitted in version that opposite party No.1 is authorized service provider of Karbon A-7 at 5 Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) Shimla H.P. It is also admitted in version by opposite party No.1 that mobile set was received by opposite party No.1 from complainant at Shimla (H.P.) as authorized service provider and thereafter the same was sent to opposite party No.2 for repair. As per memo of parties address of authorized service provider has been mentioned as Khalini Shimla which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Shimla (H.P.). As per section 11 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaint can be instituted in District Forum within whose local limits opposite parties or any of opposite party reside. As per section 11 of Consumer Protection 1986 complaint can be instituted in a District Forum where cause of action arises wholly or partly.
12. In the present case opposite party No.1 i.e. Eline authorised service provider of Karbon A-7 is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla and in the present case mobile set was received for repair by service provider within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla and even defect occurred in the mobile at Shimla within the territorial jurisdiction of learned District Forum Shimla. It is held that part of cause of action arises to complainant at Shimla within territorial jurisdiction of District Forum Shimla (H.P.). It is well settled 6 Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) law that cause of action consists of bundle of facts which gives right to complainant to claim relief against opposite party. See 1996 (2) CPC 518 title Shanti Devi Versus M/s. Wheels World. See 1999 (2) CPC 93 title M/s. Pertech Computers Limited Versus Dr. Keshav Sood & Anr. See 1995 (1) CPC 211 title M/s. Viswapriya Financial Services Versus Andhra Bank & Anr. See 1998(1) CPC 84 title Balbir Singh Sangha Versus Refco and Wessamat Appliance (Private Limited). See 1997 (1) CPC 639 title Punjab Electricity Board & Ors. Versus Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat & Ors. In view of above stated facts and case law cited surpa point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Point No.2: Final Order
13. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is allowed. It is held that part of cause of action arises to complainant to file complaint at Shimla (H.P.). Order of Learned District Forum dated 16.08.2016 announced in consumer complaint No.112/2014 title Vidit Jain Versus Eline Authorised Service Station is set aside. Complaint is remitted back to Learned District Forum Shimla for disposal strictly in accordance with law afresh. Learned District Forum will receive evidence as per modes 7 Vidit Jain Vs. Eline Authorised Service Station & Ors.(F.A. No.39/2017) mentioned in section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned District Forum will decide complaint within three months. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. Be listed before District Forum on 27.04.2017. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties free of costs forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Justice P.S. Rana (R) President Vijay Pal Khachi Member Meena Verma Member 07.04.2017.
GAURAV} 8