AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 04.08.2006 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 1300 of 1998, by which the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the respondents against the order dated 19.06.1998 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalore (in short, ''the District Forum) and directed them to pay to the petitioner/complainant Rs.7,000/- within two months and, on failure to do so, also pay interest thereon @ 9% per annum.
THE petitioner was the complainant before the Forum and the respondents were the opposite parties (OPs). The petitioner alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondents to the effect that the photocopying machine purchased by him from OP 1 (after obtaining loan from the State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Cooperative Corporation) started malfunctioning soon after it was delivered. Though he contacted the OPs repeatedly, the defects were not rectified. This led him to file a consumer complaint with the prayer for directions to the OPs to either replace the defective machine or repair it and also pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
OPS contested the complaint on the preliminary issue that the District Forum did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. On merits, they contended that the machine was inspected three times in two months and no defects were found. Moreover, the complainant had already taken out more than 50,000 photocopies using the machine. Hence the malfunctioning, if any, of the photocopying machine was due to mishandling by the operating person as well as possible fluctuations in the electric supply voltage. They added that if the complainant were to bring the machine to Jodhpur, they would be ready to attend to any defect found during inspection.
THE District Forum dismissed the contention of lack of jurisdiction by noting that though the OPs'' premises were located at Jodhpur, the photocopying machine had been delivered to the complainant at Jalore which was established by letter dated 09.12.1997 of OP 2. On further consideration of the pleadings, evidence, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed as under: (i) on the complainant taking the machine within 15 days to Jodhpur and handing it over to the OPs, the OPs shall fully repair the machine within 2 months and bear the cost of transport of the machine as well as replacement of parts, if any; (ii) if the machine could not be repaired, the OPs shall refund the cost of the machine to the complainant; (iii) the OPs shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5,700/- towards mental agony and financial loss and also Rs.300/- as cost; and (iv) if the amounts mentioned above were not paid within two months, the complainant shall be entitled to interest thereon @ 15% per annum.
THIS order of the District Forum was challenged by the OPs before the State Commission which modified the order of the District Forum and directed the OPs as mentioned above.
WE have heard Ms. Madhurima Tatia, Advocate on behalf of the respondents. Though notice for hearing had been sent to the petitioner/complainant and acknowledgement thereof had also been received, no one appeared on his behalf.
AFTER filing of the revision petition, the respondents/OPs filed a counter affidavit dated 08.09.2007. In that, the respondents specifically averred that the complainant did not bring the photocopying machine to Jodhpur for repairs as directed by the District Forum in its order dated 19.06.1998. This fact was brought to the notice of the District Forum by respondent 1 by way of an application dated 02.07.1998. Notice issued by the District Forum on this application on the same day to the petitioner/complainant was returned unserved. Though the respondents/OPs waited till 05.00 p.m. at the office of the District Forum for the petitioner/complainant to appear, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The contention of the petitioner/complainant that he took the machine to Jodhpur on 26.06.1998 was falsified by the respondents'' application dated 02.07.1998 because had that been so, the petitioner/complainant would have promptly appeared before the District Forum on 02.07.1998 and brought his say to the notice of the District Forum. This counter affidavit/ reply of the respondents was not controverted on behalf of the petitioner.
SUBSEQUENTLY, in the course of the hearing, this Commission directed the petitioner to file English translation of the complaint, other documents filed before the District Forum and the District Forum''s order. Though two opportunities were given to the petitioner to do so, he failed to comply with the direction, constraining the learned counsel for the petitioner to state that the petitioner had refused to comply despite her request to him. This Commission noticed this fact in its order dated 08.12.2011.
FROM the conduct of the petitioner and the uncontroverted counter affidavit of the respondent it is quite clear that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this revision petition because he realises that his attempt to make out a case against the respondent is baseless.
IN view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.