CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

DAMODAR PATNAIK vs R.M. CHOUDHURY ELECTRONICS

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 26 May 1994 · Citation: 1994 3 CPJ 512

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.C.Misra , Biswanath Rath , Mrinalini Padhi J.
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 371 words
1.

HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant. Respondent does not appear inspite of notice.

2.

THIS appeal has been filed against the order of District Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur rejecting the case of the complainant for appropriate relief. The complainant purchased a picture tube on 13.8.1991 for Rs. 1300/-, but he was not given any cash memo. As alleged by him, the opposite party on demand for issuance of a cash memo replied that he is to make a further payment of Rs. 268/- to enable the opposite party to issue a cash memo. When this case was filed before the District Forum, the opposite party did not appear nor it contested the case. The District Forum, however, found that no materials have been brought to record by the complainant from which he can be granted remedy.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to an application which the complainant filed on 20.6.92 the date of hearing, praying for an adjournment. On the said date of hearing the Secretary, Ganjam District Consumer Protection Guild was authorised by the complainant to contest the case on his behalf. The Secretary of the Guild filed the aforesaid application saying that he is not ready and some time should be granted for preparation. The District Forum, however, rejected the application and dismissed the case for want of materials.

3.

HAVING gone through the records we are of the view that an opportunity should have been given to the complainant on 20.6.1992 as prayed for on his behalf, specially when there is no contest to the claim petition. Mr. Jena appearing for the appellant submits that even though no specific prayer was made in the complaint petition, the District Forum could grant reflief which, in law, the complainant was entitled to. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it would have been more appropriate for the District Forum to grant an adjournment to enable the complainant to establish his claim. We, therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the District Forum for a fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving notice to both parties. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Order set aside.