State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. J. Madhu Rani Jaiswal, Hyderabad vs 01. Premier Data Products, ... on 20 March, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 757/2012 against CC 191/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad. Between : Smt. J. Madhu Rani Jaiswal W/o Chandra Kishore Jaiswal, Aged 49 years, Occ: House wife R/o H. No. 1-7-902/C/A/2, Ramnagar, Hyderabad .Appellant/complainant And 01. Premier Data Products Rep. by its Proprietor G-17, Diamond Towers Besides Belsons Taj Mahal Hotel S. D. road, Secbad 500 003. 02. IMAGE IT ( rep. by its Manager ) Shop no.8, 1st floor, Panchsheela towers Park Lane, Secunderabad 500 003. 03. Epson India Ltd Regional office, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Door No. 613, 6th floor, Swapnalok Complex S. D. Road, Secunderabad 500 003. .. respondents Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. A. Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Respondents : served Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Wednesday, the Twentieth Day of March Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
01. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 29.08,.2012 in CC 191/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased EPSON PHOTO.TX.700 W MULTI FUNCTION PRINTER cum Scanner for Rs.12,500/- on 30.08.2010 from OP. 1 with One year Warranty. When the printer stopped working on 26.10.2010 it was given for repair on 27.10.2010 to OP.2, authorized service centre for EPSON PRINTERS and it was delivered after repairs. Again, on 11.07.2011 when it was stopped working, the service Engineer of OPs informed that there is problem with Epson Head and Main Board and requested to wait for a month to get the said parts. Despite many visits and legal notice, OP.2 demanded Rs.14,250/- for repairs though it is within the warranty period which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and thus she filed the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.44,000/- towards compensation together with costs.
3. Despite service of notices, the opposite parties did not tender their appearance and consequently they were set exparte on 16.5.2012. and thereafter the case was adjourned for complainants affidavit evidence. Even though three adjournements were given for filing such affidavit evidence the complainant failed to file the same, remained absent and consequently on 29.08.2012 the complaint was dismissed
4. As against the said dismissal, the complaint filed this appeal and mainly contended that without considering the case of the complainant in a haste manner the complaint was dismissed and that on the given dates she could not appear before the District Forum for filing affidavit evidence as she suffering from Rhemotoidarthris and that her absence was neither intentional nor willful but only because of her ill health and thus prayed to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal.
5. Despite service of notices, respondents Ops did not choose to appear in this appeal before this Commission. Heard the counsel for the appellant with to the grounds of appeal. Since respondents/Ops did not tender appearance there were no arguments on their behalf.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside ?
7. As seen from the record, opposite parties did not choose to tender their appearance either before the District Forum or in this Commission. Since Ops did not choose to contest the matter before the District Forum, they were set exparte and the case was posted for affidavit evidence of the complainant as a last chance on 29.08.2012. According to the complainant she was suffering from ill health and therefore she could not appear before Forum and file her affidavit evidence and mark the documents in support of her case and that her absence was neither intentional nor willful but only for the reasons beyond her control. In view of the contents of the complaint and grounds of appeal, there is a necessity to decide whether the case comes within the purview of consumer dispute or not. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case and larger interests of justice we are satisfied to set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law. Thus, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant/complainant.
08. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh disposal according to law after giving notice to opposite parties and opportunity to the both sides for adducing evidence. However, no notice need to be given to the complainant after remand and he is directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.04.2013. There is no order as to costs in the Appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED 20.03.2013.