A.S. VAID vs GOYAL AUTOLINES

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 10.2.2005 in Complaint Case No. 674 of 2003, Col. A.S. Vaid v. Goyal Autolines & Others.

IN brief, the case of the appellant/complainant is that he purchased an AIWA 530M Card Audio System for his new INdica Car from OP No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 14,900 on 5.9.2001 and fitted the same in his new INdica car. Copy of the bill has been attached as Annexure C-1 with the complaint and the guarantee card is Annexure C-2 of the complaint. It is averred that within six months of its use, the car audio system started giving trouble by showing Error 3 on the cassette/CD player. Due to exigency of service, the complainant could take the audio system for repair to the authorized dealer i.e., OP No. 2 in March 2002. The audio system was accepted for repairs and the complainant was asked to collect it after two weeks. The complainant was told that the warranty is only for six months and not for one year. The complainant then wrote to OP No. 3 at Delhi for replacing the audio system but no action was taken. A legal notice dated 6.1.2003 was also served on respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 but that also elicited no response. The warranty card at Annexure C-2 clearly indicates that the date of purchase of the audio system is 5.9.2001 and the expiry date of the warranty is 4.9.2002 and it was well within the warranty period that the car audio system was taken to the workshop of OP No. 2. Since the OPs took no action, the complaint was instituted praying that either the car stereo be replaced or its cost i.e., Rs. 14,900 be refunded to the complainant along with costs to be imposed on the OPs for mental torture and harassment. Op No. 1 in reply stated that since the goods was not sold by them to the complainant through bill in question and no warranty was given to the complainant, the answering Op is not liable to either repair the audio system or refund its price. It was also pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer qua answering Op.

Op No. 3 in their reply admitted the sale of the audio system with one year warranty but pleaded that the set of the complainant has been working in perfect condition and there is no manufacturing defect. It also asserted that it had not received any notice from the complainant as the Op has no office at 801-807, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Marg, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. It was also pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation and the prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

THE learned District Forum in their analysis of the complaint has observed that the bill for the purchase of the audio system is in the name of Shri Jasjit Singh whereas the complainant is Col. A.S. Vaid. THE Power of Attorney purported to be given by Shri Jasjit Singh to the complainant is dated 31.1.2005 whereas the complaint was filed on 21.8.2003. Thus, on the date of filing the complaint, the complainant was not authorized to file it. THE learned District Forum dismissed the complaint on this technical ground and no relief was granted to the Complainant. Aggrieved by this order of the learned District Forum, the complainant has filed this appeal. The appeal was taken on board and the record of the complaint case was summoned from the District Forum and notice was sent to the respondents. Col. A.S. Vaid, appellant appeared in person. The respondent No. 1 also appeared in person initially. However, on the final date of arguments, none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear even before the learned District Forum and were proceeded against ex parte even at this stage.

COL. A.S. Vaid, the complainant submitted that even though the bill for audio system is in the name of his son Shri Jasjit Singh, the audio system was fitted in his car and as a beneficiary of this purchase, he is a consumer qua the respondents. He further submitted that since he could not appear before the learned District Forum on 28.11.2003, the case was filed for non-prosecution. However, it was restored vide order dated 10.2.2004 passed on a separate application. Finally submitted that the complainant is a beneficiary of the purchase by his son, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. We have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned order and have also heard the complainant in person. A perusal of the Special Power of Attorney dated 31.1.2005, on record, establishes that the purchaser of the audio system has authorized the Complainant Col. A.S. Vaid to appear and act before the District Forum-I in connection with this complaint case. This Special Power of Attorney has been taken on record before the final verdict of the District Forum. With the authority to represent the purchaser of the audio system Sh. Jasjit Singh, Col. A.S. Vaid got the legal powers to represent Shri Jasjit Singh in this case. Moreover, it is seen from the record that the complaint was filed as long back as September 2003 whereas it has been dismissed on purely technical grounds on 10.2.2005. It was for the learned District Forum to establish within 30 days the maintainability of the complaint on technical grounds. Having proceeded with the complaint case for over two years and having got on record the Special Power of Attorney before declaring its verdict, in our considered view, the learned District Forum went beyond the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which clearly states that the complaint under this Act should not be dismissed purely on technical grounds. Thus we are of the considered view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the case needs to be remanded back to the learned District Forum for decision on merit. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The complaint case is remanded back to the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh for decision on merit as per law and within the time period stipulated in the C.P. Act. The parties will bear their own costs of litigation and they are directed to appear before the District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh on 28.10.2005. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. Appeal partly allowed.