PRABHU AGRO INDUSTRIES vs DATTA SONBA MADAVI

WE are proceeding to dismiss this appeal at the stage of admission itself as we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the findings of the District Forum impugned in this appeal.

THE appellant herein are the original O.P. No. 2 in C. No. 381/1999 on the file of District Forum. Yavatmal and being aggrieved by the order dated 17.8.2000 passed by that Forum, they have approached this Commission in the appeal herein. It is to be stated that vide impugned order, the District Forum has jointly and severally ordered and directed the appellant herein and the respondent No. 2 herein who are respectively opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the said complaint to pay a sum of Rs. 4,931/- to the complainant/the respondent No. 1 herein towards the repairing of the trolley and Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 250/- towards cost of the proceedings. It is further ordered that either the appellant herein who are the manufacturers substitute the new trolley to the complainant or repair the one which has already been supplied. Brief facts on perusal of the material available before us in particular the order impugned herein, it is noticed that the respondent No. 1/complainant by availing of the assistance of the respondent No. 2 M.S. Coop. Tribal Development Corp. Ltd., Nasik, purchased the trolley from the appellant who are the manufacturers. The financial assistance was managed by the respondent No. 2. The complainant being Advasi is eligible and entitled to avail of the Scheme of the Government implemented through the respondent No. 2 and which was subsidised, the scheme appears to have been assisted by Government by making the loan available at concessional rate. The complainant availed of the said concessional facility made available and procured the trolley from the appellants herein.

It is noticed that from the day one as the complainant complains that the trolley did not function satisfactorily. The complainant brought this fact repeatedly, to the appellant''s notice as also of the respondent No. 2. However, nothing was done. Hence the complaint.

IT is noticed that the District Forum after receipt of the complaint issued initial process to the appellant and the respondent No. 2. Although both of them received the processes, they did not bother to file their written version. IT is noticed that as far as respondent No. 2 are concerned, they made appearance before the District Forum through Advocate. But thereafter he had taken number of dates but no written statement was filed, no steps were taken to prosecute the complaint proceedings with the diligence as was expected. Consequently, the District Forum proceeded ahead for the disposal of the dispute in the complaint and on the examination of the case and claim of the complaint and scrutinising the material made available before it by the complainant and on being satisfied about the merit thereof, has proceeded to award the compensation, etc. We notice that the District Forum in its elaborate judgment has dealt with the material that was made available before it by the complainant to substantiate his claim.

IN the grounds of appeal, the appellant herein have not explained as to why he did not remain present and file the written-statement, etc. This material aspect has been conveniently given a go-bye. On top of it, the appellants have audacity to say that the Consumer Forums are not the Courts as such but they are quasi-judicial authorities. It is difficult to understand as to what the appellant seeks to convey by such contemptuous and derogatory statement made in the grounds of their appeal. It, however, demonstrates that they have shown the scant respect to the Consumer Fora which as held by the Supreme Court is on par with the Civil Courts and exercise judicial powers and statutory authority. Since the appellants herein so also, the respondent No. 2 have not availed of the opportunity given to them as amply demonstrated from the comments of paragraph No. 4 of the impugned order, that the processes in the complaint were duly served upon both the respondents. No fault can be found with the District Forum in proceeding ahead for the settlement of the dispute in the complaint since the Statute mandates the Forum to do so. Since as stated earlier, the appellants have not explained as to why it did not avail of the opportunities which was offered to them, we do not think that this is a case where we should interfere particularly when the attitude of the appellant as amply borne out from the stand taken in the appeal herein. No merits. Appeal stands dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellants in pursuance of the interim order shall be paid to the complainant towards the satisfaction of the award herein, after the period of appeal is over. Appeal dismissed.