Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AHMEDABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President;
Miss. Leelaben Trivedi, Member; Dr. R.K. Shah, Member
CHEMICS ELECTRONICS & ANOTHER—Appellants
versus
RAMESH CHANDRA K. BULSARA—Respondent
Appeal No. 7 of 1990—Decided on 7.1.1991
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Vaidya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Advocate.
In a consumer protection case involving defective goods, the principles of natural justice require that both parties be given a fair opportunity to prove their respective cases.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - DEFECTIVE GOODS - REMAND - FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE CASE - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - REFUND OF DEPOSIT:
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased a Cosmics colour Television with Remote Control facility from Mumta Traders, the distributor of Cosmics Televisions manufactured by Appellant No. 1. Within a month or two, the Television became defective and the technical defects used to occur often. The complainant complained to the Distributor Mumta Traders, who sent technicians, but they could not set right the defect. The complainant approached Vadodara Grahak Mandal and lodged a complaint before the District Forum at Surat.
Finding of the Court:
The District Forum directed the appellants either to replace the Television or return the amount with interest. The appellants appealed, arguing that they were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or produce a counter-affidavit.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Forum violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or produce a counter-affidavit? 2. Whether the Television was defective from the beginning or due to other reasons?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the District Forum had not given the appellants a fair opportunity to prove their case and that the interest of justice demanded that the matter be remanded for both parties to lead evidence. 2. The court found that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to determine whether the Television was defective from the beginning or due to other reasons.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was remanded to the Baroda District Forum for disposal according to law. The amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited by the appellants before the Commission was ordered to be refunded.
Mr. Justice S.A. Shah, President—Appellant No. 1, Original Opposite Party No. 1 is the manufacturer of COSMICS Televisions. Appellant No. 2 Mumta Traders, original Opposite Party No. 2, is the Distributor of Cosmics Televisions manufactured by Appellant No. 1.
2. The respondent original complainant had filed a complaint before the Surat District Forum, alleging that he had purchased the Cosmics colour Television with Remote Control facility from Mumta Traders, who is the distributor of Cosmics Televisions manufactured by Appellant No. 1 for the total value of Rs. 10,700/- on September 29,1988. According to the complainant, within a month or two, the Television became defective and the technical defects used to occur often. The complainant had orally complained to the Distributor Mumta Traders who used to send the technician, but the technicians sent by Appellant No. 2 could not set right the defect. The complainant, therefore, had given written complaint on July 25, 1989, but the same was not attended to by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant thereafter approached Vadodara Grahak Mandal, and thereafter lodged his Complaint before the District Forum at Surat, where the Complaint was registered as Case No. 311 of 1989.
3. The District Forum, Surat, by the impugned order passed on June 14,1990, directed the appellants either to replace the Cosmic colour Television by a new piece of the similar description, free from any defect, or to return the amount of Rs. 10,700/- together with 10 percent interest thereon, within fifteen days from the date of the order.
4. It is against the said order passed by the District Forum, Surat, that the appellants have filed this Appeal.
5. At the hearing of this appeal, one of the contention raised by Mr. Vaidya appearing on behalf of the appellants, was that the District Forum had not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the complainant; nor any opportunity to produce the counter affidavit, and had directly passed the impugned order in total violence of the principles of natural justice.
6. We wanted to send the Television for checking and examination by technicians in order to find out the truth. We tried to get the same examined by Electronic Testing & Development Centre, Baroda, which is the Government Testing Laboratory. But the Laboratory quoted Rs. 3,000/- by way of testing fees to which neither the appellants, nor the Respondent were prepared to deposit. We also found the fees to be exhorbitant. Both the parties have, however, produced the Reports of the technicians, but we are not able to accept the same on it’s face value since none of them appears to be qualified.
7. We have gone through the record and proceedings and from perusal of the record, it transpires that the first date of recording the version was fixed on January 16,1990. The opposite party (present appellants) remained present and filed their version. Complainant was not present on that day. The matter was then adjourned to February 5, 1990. The complainant was served with a notice asking him to remain present on the said date, but he was not present. The Advocate for the opposite party prayed for adjournment. The request was granted and the matter was adjourned to April 9,1990. There is no proceeding to see as to what happened on April 9,1990. It appears that on April 26, 1990, the complainant appeared and filed his Affidavit. There are no proceedings thereafter to ascertain as to whether the copy of the Affidavit was served to the other side or not and whether the other side was informed of the next date.
8. From the perusal of the record and proceedings, we are of the opinion that fair opportunity has not been given to the appellants original opposite party. In this case, the Television is alleged to be defective. Whether that defect in the TV was from the beginning, or, whether the goods when given were defective, or whether the defect was due to any other reason, are all questions to be determined,
