KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No. 573/2010
JUDGMENT DATED: 02.11.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Harikumar,
Secretary, Teltron Electronics
Development Society,
Reg. No. T-455, Near Benz Automobils,
Panavila, Bakery Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(Rep. by Adv. Sri. Deepak Twinkle Sanal)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
1. George Thomas , P,
‘Christina’ Ambalathunada,
Mukkolakkal P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 44
2. Teltron Electronic Development Society,
Near Benz Automobiles,
Panavila, Thiruvananthapuram
3. Vijayakumar, District Manager,
Teltron Electronics Development Society,
Panavila,
Backery Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Prakash,
Technician, Teltron Electronic Development Society,
Panavila, Backery Junction,
Thiruvananthapuram
JUDGMENT
SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred from the order dated 15.2.2010 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in C.C. No. 257/09. The complaint was filed by the first respondent herein as complainant against the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 as opposite parties whereby the Forum below directed the first opposite party /Teltron Electronics Development Society to replace the defective surge protector with a brand new one and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with costs of Rs. 1,500/-
The Case of the complainant is that he purchased a power protector and a surge protector from the opposite party on 7.4.2009 and 5.5.2009 respectively. Within a few days, the surge protector became defective and was not getting supply in two of the phases, Even though the matter was informed, the opposite parties did not turn up. A few days later, a burning smell came from the surge protector. Though the complainant informed the matter immediately
to the office of the opposite parties and their technicians, there was no response from their side. On the same night, the surge protector burst and due to this, walls were blackened. The complainant informed the matter to the secretary. He sent the technician and he took away the burned surge protector. There after the opposite parties did not take any steps to replace the burned surge protector. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum.
Though notice was served, the opposite parties remained ex-party. The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Exts. P1 and P2.
We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/3rd opposite party. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Forum below had passed the order without giving opportunity to contest the matter. He argued for the position that even though the complainant alleged that within a few days of installation of the surge protector it burst and due to this the walls were blackened, no advocate commission was deputed to ascertain the damage caused, and did not determine the actual possession of the surge protector. According to the appellant the surge protector is now in the custody of the complainant and he is using the same and no receipt or documentary evidence was in favour of the complainant to prove that it is not in the custody of the complainant. Thus he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the order passed by the Forum below we find that though the opposite parties accepted the notices issued by the Forum, they did not contest the case by filing version and by adducing evidence. We find that the complainant is filed proof affidavit and it is uncontraverted. The complainant has also produced two documents, which were marked as Exts. P1 and P2. No satisfactory reason or ground is mentioned for the non appearance of the opposite parties before the Forum below. In the backdrop of the above facts the
Contention of the appellant that the opposite parties were not given sufficient opportunity to contest the case cannot be accepted. We find that the Forum below has considered all the aspects in its correct prospective and has passed the order on merits. The directions given by the Forum are also justifiable, since the first opposite party was directed to replace the defective surge protector with a brand new one with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,500/- We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the said directions. In the said circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
