ARIHANT COMPUTERS (P) LTD. vs S.Sethuraman

THE opposite party in O.P. No. 307/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant herein. THE case of the complainant was as follows : He purchased a cartridge from the opposite party on 22.4.2001 by giving the used piece to the opposite party. When the complainant tried it in the printer it did not fit in. It was immediately sent back to the opposite party for replacement. THE opposite party refused to oblige on the ground that there was no warranty. THE complainant tried to explain to the opposite party that the issue was not one of warranty but one of defect in the supply of goods, that is, a different product had been given by mistake. THE opposite party, however, refused to give replacement or refund. THE complainant wrote a letter on 7.6.2001. THEre was no reply. He caused a notice to be issued on 9.6.2001. THEre was a reply to the notice stating that the complainant should have verified the goods before taking delivery and having taken delivery there was no question of replacement. In such circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.

AS already noted, the opposite party remained ex parte and did not contest the matter. The District Forum granted the prayer with costs. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

It would appear that the opposite party was served and they were asked to appear on 24.7.2001. As they did not appear, they were set ex parte on the very same day. The orders came to be passed on 16.8.2001. In our view, the District Forum ought to have afforded an opportunity to the opposite party to file their version and contest their case on merits. The National Commission in M/s. Signet Corporation v. Commissioner, M.C.D. New Delhi & Ors., III (1997) CPJ 6 (NC)=1997 (2) CPR 179, has held that the requirement to grant time to file version is mandatory and if the Forum or the Commission does not do that, it is a grave irregularity. In that view of the matter, we deem it proper to afford an opportunity to the opposite party to file their version and get a decision on merits. However, that does not mean that there was no duty cast on the opposite party to have appeared before the District Forum on the date fixed and sought time to file version. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party should be put on terms to have the liberty of contesting the case on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum subject to the opposite party/appellant paying a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the complainant within a period of four weeks from today. On such payment, the District Forum shall permit the opposite party to file their version within two weeks therefrom. The District Forum shall dispose of the complaint within a period of eight weeks thereafter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.