B.C. Kandpal, J. (President) - (1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 05 of 2012. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party No. 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000/ - to the respondent No. 1 - complainant. The District Forum has also directed the respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 60,000/ - to the respondent No. 1 - complainant. This way, the complainant was held entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. The amount was directed to be paid within a period of one month from the date of the order. The complainant was directed to hand over the old air conditioner to the respondent No. 2 - opposite party No. 1 within a period of 15 days' from the date of the order. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 05.04.2011, the complainant had purchased a 2.2 ton Hitachi 5 Star Split Air Conditioner from the opposite party No. 1 for sum of Rs. 56,000/ -. The said air conditioner carried warranty for a period of five years. It was alleged that due to wrong installation of the air conditioner by the employees of the opposite party No. 1, the air conditioner got damaged and on account of which, the installation report was not signed by the complainant. The complainant agitated the matter with the opposite party No. 1, who assured for replacement of the air conditioner. When the air conditioner was not set right/replaced by the opposite party No. 1, the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party No. 2 on 25.05.2011, but no action was taken. The complainant again lodged the complaint with the opposite party No. 2 on 17.06.2011, on which the representative of the company came for inspection of the air conditioner and told that the damaged part would be replaced on its availability, but the needful was not done. The complainant again lodged the complaint on 26.09.2011, but to no avail. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
(2.) The District Forum issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 24.02.2012 proceeded the consumer complaint ex -parte against the appellant and decided the same vide impugned order dated 14.02.2013 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
(3.) None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 inspite of the acknowledgement due pertaining to respondent No. 2 having been received and available on record. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 - complainant and have also perused the record. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex -parte against the appellant. The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.;