Multycare Solutions vs Malay Bhaumik

The present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 1725/2016 dated 24.05.2018.

Brief facts of the Case are as follows:-

The Respondent/ Complainant stated that he purchased a laptop of H.P. Model Pavilion D.V. 6000 for Rs. 59250/- from Spectra Net Technologies on 30.11.2006.Thereafter, the said Laptop was given for repair to the Petitioner/Opposite Party as it was not working properly. After seven days, the concerned Laptop was repaired and returned by charging Rs. 700/- for the repairs. At the same time, it was also assured that if some problem occurs within 3 days, then the Petitioner/Opposite Party would repair the same.

It is stated that within 3 days, the said Laptop again started creating problems due to which Respondent handed over the same to the Petitioner for repairs. The Petitioner assured the Respondent that the Laptop would be repaired and given back within 7 days. In the month of January 2012, the Petitioner gave another Laptop to the Respondent, which after 5 days started showing no display. The Respondent gave the Laptop for repairs to the Petitioner on 25.01.2012, but neither the Laptop was repaired nor any reply was given to him in this regard. The Respondent, therefore, sent an e-mail to the International Consumer Rights Protection Council who in-turn sent notice to the Petitioner, but there was no response. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent before the District Forum for handing over the H.P. Model Pavilion DV 6000 in a repaired condition, Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental, physical and financial pain and Rs. 20,000/- towards Legal expenses.

Complaint was partly allowed by the District Forum, vide order dated 12.02.2015. Petitioner was directed to repair the said Laptop H.P. Model Pavilion D.V. 6000. Further, Petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony & Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses.

On this, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission, against the orders passed by the District Forum. State Commission, vide order dated 24.05.2018 dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner for non-prosecution.

Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner had filed the present Revision Petition. The grounds for filing the Revision Petition are as follows:-

On 29.06.2017, a resolution was passed by the Bar by which the Lawyers abstained from work. The Counsel of the Petitioner did not appear before the State Commission because of the call given by the Bar.

On 10.01.2018, Counsel of the Petitioner was not well, due to which again he could not appear before the State Commission.

The, cause list dated 10.01.2018 maintained by the Reader of the State Commission, showed the next date to be 29.05.2018 instead of 24.05.2018 due to which the Counsel could not appear before the Court and matter was dismissed for non-presence of the Petitioner.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

From a perusal of the evidence, placed before us, it is found that on the first date of hearing before State Commission i.e. on 29.06.2017 due to a resolution of the Bar Association, the hearing was not possible and hence, matter was listed for hearing on 10.01.2018.

On 10.01.2018, both the parties were again not present and the matter was fixed for 24.05.2018 for final hearing.

But from the perusal of the cause list placed on record, it was found that the matter was listed for 29.05.2018 and not for 24.05.2018. The Counsel for the Petitioner was, therefore, not present on 24.05.2018 due to the wrong mentioning of date by the Reader in the cause list. We are, therefore, satisfied that the absence of the Petitioner before the State Commission on the date on which appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution was not deliberate. There were sufficient reasons for the non-appearance of the Petitioner and he needs to be heard so that his interests are not prejudiced.

The present Revision Petition is allowed and order passed by the State Commission is set-aside. Further, State Commission is directed to proceed with the appeal after giving due hearing to the parties and decide on merits.