National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Fairdeal Electronics vs Jasmin Prabhakar Mehta & Anr. on 19 January, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 07/07/2015 in Complaint No. 161/2015 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. M/S. FAIRDEAL ELECTRONICS SHOP NO. 12, GROUND FLOOR, ASHOKA SHOPPING CENTRE, NEAR G.T. HOSPITAL, L.T. MARG, MUMBAI-400001 MAHARASHTRA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. JASMIN PRABHAKAR MEHTA & ANR. SUMMER HEIGHTS, 9TH FLOOR, FLAT NO. 901, NR. BHAVNAS COLLEGE, CHOUPATY, MUMBAI-40007 MAHARASHTRA 2. PANASONIC INDIA PVT. LTD. PLOT NO. 07, FIFTH FLOOR, NAYAK CHAMBER, OPP. FUN CINEMA, NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI MUMBAI-400058 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appellant : Mr. Sonam Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Chandni Goyal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate with
Mr. Digambar R. Thakare, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Rishi Kapoor, Advocate for R-2
Dated : 19 Jan 2016 ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in Complaint Case No. CC/15/161, the first Opposite Party, i.e. M/s Fairdeal Electronics, preferred this Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). By the impugned order, the State Commission has proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant herein.
2. The impugned order reads as follows:
"Mr. Digambar Thakare-Advocate for the complainant. Advocate Suchitra Sable-Advocate files her vakalatnama on behalf of opponent no.2. She seeks for extension of time for filing written version. 14 days time is granted by way of last chance. Opponent no.1 failed to appear without any sufficient reason in spite of receipt of notice. Hence, complaint to proceed ex-parte against opponent no.1. Opponent no.2 is directed to file written version and say on the application for interim relief on the next date i.e. 20/07/2015."
3. It is observed from the record that this Appeal has been filed with a delay of 106 days. A brief perusal of the application for condonation of delay does not give any substantial reason except for stating that the summons were received by an ex-employee, namely, Mr. Mohd. Ashraf Rathod, who had left the services of the Appellant Company and went to his native place in the month of April-May, 2015, and, therefore, the correspondence did not reach the other staff members. It was only when the second Respondent, the Manufacturer, informed the Appellant's official telephonically around the third week of September, 2015, that they had become aware of the summons. The certified copies of the proceedings were obtained on 14.10.2015 and thereafter the present Appeal was filed.
4. It is not understood as to how if one of the staff members, who had received the summons in April/May, 2015 and had quit the Appellant's Company, the other staff members were not aware of any communication/correspondence taken place during that period. Admittedly, the Manufacturer had appeared before the State Commission on 08.06.2015 and the Appellant herein is their Authorized Dealer.
5. The order of the State Commission dated 08.06.2015 reads as follows:
"Adv. Digambar Thakare is present for the complainant. None is present for the opponent no.1 though duly served. Adv. Rajesh Choudhari is present for the opponent no.2. He undertakes to file vakalatnama on next date.
Heard both the sides on hearing on admission. Complaint is admitted. Now, the matter is adjourned to 07/07/2015 for filing written version by the opponents."
It is apparent from this order that though the Appellant herein was duly served, they did not appear. Even in the impugned order dated 07.07.2015 the State Commission observed that the Appellant herein, the first Opposite Party, failed to appear without any sufficient reason in spite of receipt of notice. Accordingly, the Appellant was set ex-parte on 07.07.2015 itself and the second Opposite Party, who was the Manufacturer, was directed to file the written version by 20.07.2015.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahant Bikram Das Chela v. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors., 1977 AIR 2221, has held that Section-5 of the Limitation Act is a hard task-master and judicial interpretation has encased it within a narrow compass. A large measure of case-law has grown around Section-5, its highlights being that one ought not easily to take away a right which has accrued to a party by lapse of time and that therefore a litigation who is not vigilant about his rights must explain every day's delay. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala Vs. Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 322, has held that when a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone delay, only on sympathetic ground.
7. It is observed from the record that the Manufacturer was also proceeded ex-parte by the State Commission, as they did not file the written version within the mandatory period as stipulated in Section 13 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision dated 04.12.2015 rendered in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeals No.10941-10942 of 2013), has clearly laid down that the District Forum cannot go beyond the mandatory period in granting extension of time. This Appeal is preferred by the Dealer, who did not appear before the State Commission despite service of summons. It is an admitted fact that the summons were served but it is the case of the Appellant that its employee who had received the summons had left the services in April/May, 2015. The exact date when the said employee left the services is not given in the application for condonation of delay. To reiterate, when it is an Authorized Dealer/Service Centre for Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd., there are no justifiable grounds given by the Appellant as to why the correspondence/communication was not handled by the other staff members.
8. In the instant case, despite service, the Appellant has neither appeared before the State Commission nor chosen to file its written version. Keeping in view the same, I am of the considered view that the State Commission has rightly proceeded ex-parte against the Appellant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order by the State Commission.
9. For all the aforementioned reasons, this Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
...................... M. SHREESHA PRESIDING MEMBER