ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udham Singh Nagar (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 74 of 2018 styled as Sh. Dan Singh Vs. Manjeet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed ex-parte directing the opposite parties (jointly or severally) to either provide new A.C. of the same model in place of old one to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of judgment & order as well as install the same free of cost or to pay cost of the A.C., i.e. Rs. 35,500/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum, from the date of filing of consumer complaint 19.07.2018 till actual payment to the complainant. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and financial loss as well as Rs. 2,000/- for litigation charges from the opposite parties.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant had purchased an Air Conditioner (A.C.) 1.5 Ton model No. OG-AXGT 18FHTA WAC for Rs. 35,500/- on dated 02.05.2018 including SGST @ 14% Rs. 3,882.80 and CGST @ 14% Rs. 3,882.80 with five years warranty from the opposite party No. 1 – Manjeet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. After expiry of one month, the said A.C. stopped cooling and a complaint thereof was submitted to the opposite party No. 1. The owner of Manjeet Electronics Pvt. Ltd. sent two persons namely Alladeen and Sachin. Both of them alleged themselves as Area Manager and asked that the complainant had to pay Rs. 8,000/- as GST for replacing the A.C. in question with new one. It is also alleged by them that no receipt will be given of such payment. The act of asking GST amounts to deficiency in service and also comes within the purview of unfair trade practice. The complainant has also dispatched a legal notice through his advocate, but no reply was given to the complainant. Hence, the complainant was constrained to submit a complaint before the District Commission.

3. A perusal of impugned ex-parte judgment and order of the District Commission transpires that the notices sent to the opposite parties were returned back to the Commission below and, therefore, after a lapse of time, the concerned Commission passed an order for ex-parte hearing against the opposite parties on dated 04.10.2018. The complainant has submitted the evidence.

4. After perusing the facts, law and material available on record, the District Commission has passed the impugned ex-parte judgment and order dated 15.11.2018 in the above terms.

5. On having been aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, an appeal has been submitted by the opposite party No. 2 as appellant.

6. In the appeal, it is alleged by the appellant that the impugned judgment and order is an ex-parte judgment and order, which is passed in the contravention of law, evidence and against the mandate provisions of law. It is also alleged that the Commission below has not granted any opportunity to the appellant and respondent No. 2 to submit their case before the District Commission. Hence, the impugned ex-parte judgment and order is perverse and is liable to be set aside. It is further alleged in the appeal that the District Commission has ignored the facts that without availability of relevant record about the delivery of the notices. The impugned ex-parte judgment and order was passed against the appellant and respondent No. 2 without perusing the facts, which is against law. The District Commission has passed the impugned ex-parte judgment and order against the principle of natural justice. The impugned ex-parte judgment and order is against the provisions of Consumer Protection Act as well as against the Evidence Act. Therefore, the impugned ex-parte judgment and