Delhi

StateCommission

A/398/2016

M/S MANPREET TELECOM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SK KAMMOD - Opp.Party(s)

VIKRAM GOLA

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:17.04.2018

 

FIRST APPEAL NO.398/2016

 

M/s. Manpreet Telecom,

A-159,

Main Vikas Marg,

New Delhi.                                                                            …. Appellant / Complainant

 

Versus

Shri S.K. Kammod,

West Block-V, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi.                                                 …. Respondent / Opposite Party

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

1.Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

                     In the present appeal challenge is made to order dated 19.05.2010 by which Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Forum  (East) (in short, CDRF),  in  CC No. 468/ 2014 has allowed the aforesaid complaint and has directed appellant/ OP as under:-

“Opponent is directed to repair the mobile phone in question within 30 days from the receipt of this order and giving one year warranty from the date of delivery of phone. If failed to do so, OP will refund Rs.4,500/- along with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

We also award compensation of Rs.2,000/- as cost of harassment mental agony and pain suffered due to the deficiency of service by OP along with Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation”.

                     Perusal of aforesaid order shows that appellant/ OP was proceeded exparte before the District Forum. The stand of appellant/ OP is that they were not served with the notice of complaint case.

                     On the other hand respondent/ complainant states that appellant / OP had refused to accept the notice as such District Forum had proceeded exparte against appellant / OP.

                     We have perused the orders passed by the Ld. District Forum from time to time which are annexed with the appeal.

                     After some arguments respondent/ complainant states that he has no objection if the appellant/ OP is allowed to contest the case on merits subject to payment of costs as he had appeared on number of dates before the District Forum as well as before this Commission.

                     With the consent of the respondent / complainant as well as we accept for effective disposal of case on merits, we accept the present appeal and set aside the order dated 19.05.2010 subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to respondent / complainant.

                     The parties shall appear before District Forum on  17.05.2018. On the said date, petitioner/ OP shall pay the costs to respondent / complainant  and shall also file its WS. Thereafter the District Forum shall proceeded in the matter in accordance with law.

                     File be consigned to record room. Copy of the order be sent to District Forum for necessary information and compliance.

                     The FDR deposited by the appellant/ OP be released in its favour after completion of this formalities.

                                                                                                                                                         

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member