SUMEET AGGARWAL vs T.NORBU

THIS appeal is by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated July 8, 1996 whereby the complaint was dismissed in limine without following the procedure prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, on the ground that the complainant had not disclosed the name of the actual owner of the Music System, which was given to the opposite party No. 2 for repairs.

AS per brief, the notices of the appeal were given to the opposite parties, who have chosen not to appear. Actual date notices were again issued. We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and we are of the view that the dismissal of the complaint without following the procedure prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act was not justified. The complainant handed over the Music System to opposite party No. 2 for repair on April 24,1995. After two months, on June 23, 1995, it was given back to the complainant. Since it was not properly functioning, on the following day the same was again given to the opposite party No. 2 for repairs. Since Music System was not returned, the complaint was filed, alleging deficiency in rendering service. It is immaterial as to whom actually the Music System belongs. Since the complainant has handed over the Music System to opposite party No. 2 for repair, he was hirer of services of opposite party No. 2. The complainant was to pay the repair charges. In such circumstances, the complaint was maintainable. The observations of the District Forum that some elaborate evidence was required to be led in this case cannot be accepted. Whether the Music System can be repaired or not for want of spare parts could be deposed on the affidavits to be produced by the parties. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum for decision according to law on merits. The parties are directed to appear there on 2.6.1997. Appeal allowed.