FAST TELECAST PVT LTD Vs. ABDUL NAZAR ZAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -COMPLAINANT Abdul Nazar Zain alleged that he purchased an Uptron Talkman MX 308 DX EPABX System from the opposite party Fast Teleset Pvt. Ltd. after paying Rs. 15,500 along with Rs. 1,500 for installation on 4. 2. 1997. After the purchase, the opposite party entered into an agreement on 4. 2. 1998 for free maintenance of the system for a period of one year. The instrument was found to be not working properly from the very next day of installation. The attendance report shows that machine was defective due to poor workmanship and bad quality. The District Forum directed the opposite party to replace the Uptron Talkman MX 308 DX EPABX System with new one and also to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as costs.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order the opposite party filed an appeal before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.

(3.) BEFORE the State Commission the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though notice from the District Forum was accepted by his office, the date of posting of the case was the date on which the marriage of the daughter of the proprietor took place and, therefore, he could not be present on that day and hence, the ex parte order my be set aside. The State Commission called for the records of the District Forum and observed that after the notice was accepted, the case was posted to 8. 2. 2000. Even assuming on that day, the institution was having the holiday on account of the marriage of the daughter of the proprietor, there was no acceptable explanation or material to show as to that prevented the opposite party from appearing on the next day; i. e. , on 21. 3. 2000 to which date the complaint came to be posted for ex parte evidence. From 21. 3. 2000 the matter further adjourned to 6. 4. 2000; and it was on 6. 4. 2000 that the evidence of P. W. 1 was recorded and the records were marked. Again the complaint was adjourned for hearing. On 17. 4. 2000 the matter was heard and was adjourned to 28. 4. 2000. What could be seen from the order sheet is that on successive hearing days there was no representation on behalf of the opposite party. The State Commission accordingly dismissed the appeal.