State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Manekar vs Mamta T.Sahare & Ors. on 27 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA STATE,
CIRCUIT BENCH, NAGPUR
5th floor, Administrative Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-01
Appeal No. A/09/731
(Arisen out of Order Dated 14.09.2009 in Case
No.CC/09/318 (Old) & CC/09/196 (New) of Addl. District Forum, Nagpur)
Sunil Manekar
Prop. Supra Computer Systems
VIP Road, T Paoint, Dharampeth
Nagpur
R/o Priyadarshani Colony
Near RTO, Civil Lines
Nagpur.
Versus
. Appellant(s)
1. Mamta T.Sahare
R/o C/o T T Sahare
Near Library (Tata Balak Mandir)
Bezanbaug, Nagpur- 440 004
2. M/s Zenith Computers Ltd
Unit No.5, Electronic Sadar-1
(1st Floor,) Mahape
Navi Mumbai- 400 710
Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble
Mr.S.M. Shembole Presiding Member
Hon'ble
Smt.Jayshree Yengal Member
Hon'ble
Mr.N. Arumugam Member
PRESENT:
Adv.Mr Aniket Pande
......for
the Appellant
Respondent in person
......for
the Respondent
JUDGEMENT
(Passed on27.04.2012) Per Mr S M Shembole, Honble Presiding Member This appeal is an exception to the exparte judgement & order dtd. 14.09.2009 passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/09/318 (Old) and CC/09/196 (New) partly allowing the complaint directing the o.ps to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.25,400/- towards the cost of computer and anti virus software and further to pay compensation at Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of proceedings.
We heard Adv. Mr Pande for the appellant and respondent No.1 Smt Sahare and considering the facts of the case; we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of admission itself.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that :-
1. Appellant / o.p. No.1 Sunil Manekar is a Proprietor of Supra Computer Systems, Nagpur. He is a distributor of computers of Zenith Computers Ltd., Mumbai. On 04.08.2007 complainant / respondent Smt M Sahare purchased a computer for Rs.23,600/- from the appellant with one year warranty. Respondent No.1 purchased separate Web-Cam but as it was not functioning, she made complaint to the appellant. However, respondent was also required to obtain internet connection and for that she has paid Rs.500/- but computer was not working properly. The defects were noticed within 15 days from the date of delivery of computer. Therefore, respondent made complaint with the appellant. The defects could not be removed in spite of anti virus software was purchased and used. Therefore, the complainant / respondent made complaint, gave notice to the o.p. / appellant and thereafter made complaint before the District Consumer Forum, claiming compensation of Rs.3.90 Lacs & Rs.23,000/- towards cost of computer.
2. In spite of service of notice, o.ps.
including present appellant failed to appear and resist the complaint before the Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. Therefore, on hearing the complainant / respondent Forum has passed exparte judgement & order.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, o.p.No.1 Sunil Manekar has filed this appeal.
4. It is submitted by Mr Aniket Pande, Ld. Counsel for the appellant that appellant / o.p.No.1 was not served with the notice of complaint but the Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur passed exparte order, to which, it is denied by respondent No.1 / complainant and submitted that o.p. No.1 / appellant was duly served with the notice but he purposely avoided to contest the complaint.
5. On perusal of copy of impugned judgement & order it manifests that both the o.ps. were duly served with the notice and therefore, the Forum was constrained to pass exparte impugned judgement & order. In spite of these facts, the appellant has not produced any record i.e. copy of notice which was issued to the appellant / o.p. No.1 through Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. Mr Pande Ld. Counsel could not explain as to why the copy of notice is not obtained and produced before this Commission. Hence, bare contention of the appellant that he was not served with the notice, cannot be accepted.
6. Further on perusal of copies of documents on record, it reflects that in spite of complaints of the complaint / respondent No.1 made with the appellant the appellant has not complied with the grievance and thereby committed deficiency in service. Hence, Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has rightly held that appellant / o.p. No.1 has committed deficiency in service, so also the respondent No.2.
7. Considering all these facts, Addl. District Consumer Forum, has rightly passed the impugned judgement & order. We find no illegality or any error in the impugned judgement & order. Hence, no interference is warranted.
8. In the result the appeal is being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed summarily.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
ORDER i. Appeal is summarily dismissed.
ii. No order as to cost.
iii. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
[ S. M. SHEMBOLE ] PRESIDING MEMBER [ SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER [ N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER sj