KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 441/02 JUDGMENT DATED 26.12.2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER M.R.Venkiteswaran, Proprietor, New Darsan TV Centre, -- APPELLANT VCM Buildings, Near Divine Hospital, Kumaranellur.P.O, Vadakkanchery, Thrissur District – 680 500. (By Adv.George) Vs. Devaprasad.K., S/0 Kayatt, -- RESPONDENT Kayanatt House, Kottukulam South, Thiruvazhiyode, Ottapalam Taluk. (By Adv.T.T.Josephina) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated.15th March 2002 passed by CDRF, Trichur in OP.83/01 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming replacement of the defective Dish Antina and to replace the LNB and receiver which were found defective and also to get a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The aforesaid claim was repudiated by the opposite party by contending that there was no deficiency of service. But the lower forum accepted the case of the complainant and thereby directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2350/- representing the cost of the Dish Antina and its accessories with interest at the rate of 12% and cost of Rs.3000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant argued on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. It is argued that there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the complainant that LNB was purchased from the opposite party. It is further submitted that the opposite party was not given an opportunity to replace the defective Dish Antina and its accessories. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside impugned order passed by the lower forum. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the lower forum. He also relied on Ext.P5 bill dtd. 8.9.05 evidencing purchase of Dish Antina with its accessories from the appellant/opposite party. It is also submitted that the complainant applied for taking out a commission to inspect the defective Dish and its accessories and thereby the complainant incurred expenses to take of the expert commission. He also relied on Ext.C1 report filed by the expert commission. Thus, the respondent/complainant prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the lower forum can be justified in finding deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP.83/01? 4. POINTS 1 & 2:- The fact that the respondent/complainant purchased the TV Dish antina and its accessories from the appellant/opposite party is not disputed. Ext.P5 bill dated. 8.9.05 would make it clear that the Dish antina and its accessories were purchased by the complainant from the appellant/opposite party. Ext.C1 commission report would make it clear that the Dish LNB attached to the Dish antina was defective. The very stand taken by the appellant/opposite party that the defective LNB was not supplied by the opposite party would make it clear that the appellant/opposite party took a negative approach and thereby denied the valuable right of the respondent/ complainant as a consumer. That itself would make the case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party as acceptable. The evidence of the complainant as PW1 would also support the case regarding deficiency in service. The lower forum has rightly appreciated the oral evidence adduced by the complainant and the opposite party. It has also rightly appreciated the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant, and C1 report submitted by the expert commission. Thus, the finding that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party can be upheld. This commission is not having any hesitation in upholding the aforesaid findings made by the lower forum. 5. The lower forum has directed the opposite party (appellant) to pay a sum of Rs.2350/- representing the price of the Dish Antina with its accessories and further directed to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 8.9.05 on which day the complainant purchased the Dish Antina and its accessories from the appellant/opposite party. So, the aforesaid direction given by the lower form regarding refund of the price of the Dish antina and its accessories can be treated as very just and reasonable. Hence the same is to be upheld. The lower forum has also ordered a sum of Rs.3000/- by way of cost. The material on record would show that the complainant had to incur expenses to prosecuting his complaint in OP.83/01. It is to be noted that the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs.750/- towards the batta for the expert commission. Considering all these aspects this commission is of the view that a sum of Rs.2000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So, the cost of Rs.3000/- ordered by the lower forum is reduced to Rs.2000/. In all other respects the impugned order passed by the lower forum is confirmed. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is disposed of. The impugned order dated.15.3.02 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP.83/01 is modified to the extent as indicated above. Thereby, the order passed by the lower forum regarding the payment of Rs.2350 with interest at the rate of 12% is upheld. But, the order regarding payment of cost of Rs.3000/- is modified and thereby the cost is reduced to Rs.2000/-. as far as the present appeal is concerned the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER s/L | 
