Gautam Barua vs Abhi Technologies

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 01.11.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal no. A-795 of 2006. By this order, the State Commission allowed the appeal of the Opposite Party (M/s Abhi Technologies) against the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Mehrauli, New Delhi (in short, ''the District Forum '') in complaint case no. 1199 of 2003, by which the District Forum held the following: "The OP did not turn up despite registered notice and was proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record. The computer was upgraded on 19.09.2002 and it was under warranty period upto 18.09.2003. The defect having been arisen within the warranty period the OP is liable to rectify the defect which the OP has not done and has not even returned the computer to the complainant after the repairs. Hence, the OP is guilty of deficiency in service. We direct the OP to rectify the computer in all respects and deliver the same to the complainant at his place within one month of the receipt of the order. The OP is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment suffered by him. The OP shall also pay Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. The OP is directed to comply with order within one month of its receipt failing which the amount of compensation and cost shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order ".

WE have heard Ms. Shweta Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. By order dated 28.09.2011, this Commission had already directed to proceed with the petition and treat the respondent as ex parte, because, there was no representation on its behalf on that date, though the learned counsel for the respondent had been duly served. The illegality of the State Commission ''s impugned order is writ large. First, though the respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission sometime in August - September 2006 against the District Forum ''s order dated 12.10.2004, the State Commission entertained the appeal without the respondent/appellant having even sought condonation of delay of nearly one year and eight months. Secondly, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, the appeal was filed against the principal order dated 12.10.2004 of the District Forum which was being executed before the District Forum since February 2006. In fact, in the course of the execution proceedings, the respondent had appeared before the District Forum on various dates, accepted the award and sought two weeks on 11.08.2006 to comply with the order dated 12.10.2004. Even then the State Commission entertained the respondents appeal against the order dated 12.10.2004 of the District Forum. Finally, it is absolutely clear that the State Commission passed the impugned order by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2004 of the District Forum and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication without even issuing notice to the petitioner.

IN view of the foregoing, the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside with the observation that we are surprised that such an order could ever be passed by a State Commission as in this case. The respondent is directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for these proceedings, in addition to complying with the order dated 12.10.2004 of the District Forum (which it had clearly accepted in 2006 during the execution proceedings) within four weeks from the date of this order. If these directions are not complied with, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue his remedy by way of appropriate execution application before the District Forum.