KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.06/2023

ORDER DATED:03.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.395/2020 of DCDRC, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONER/OPPOSITE PARTY:

(by Adv. Julian Xavier J.)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

HON’BLE JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN: PRESIDENT

               The opposite party in C.C.No.395/2020 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the District Commission for short) has filed this revision challenging an order dated 14.10.2022 in I.A.No.225/2022.  As per the order under revision, the District Commission has appointed an Expert Commissioner to inspect the disputed equipment and to submit a report.  According to the Revision Petitioner, the said order has been passed without considering the objections filed by him.  Therefore, it is contended that the said order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

          2.       The respondent herein who is the complainant before the District Commission had filed the complaint alleging that two glass counters, a cold pastry counter and a hot glass food counter, purchased by him from the Revision Petitioner were defective and were not working.  He therefore claimed return of the price paid by him and compensation.  The Revision Petitioner has filed version disputing all the allegations made in the complaint and questioning the maintainability of the complaint itself.  According to the Revision Petitioner, the respondent is the owner of two cake shops and therefore, the counters were purchased for commercial purpose.

          3.       The District Commission has started recording of evidence in the case after the examination of PW1has been completed.  While so, the respondent filed I.A.No.225/2022 for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to examine the glass counters and to report regarding their present condition as well as the quality of the parts used inside and other related aspects.  The petition was opposed by the Revision Petitioner by filing written objections.  After hearing both the parties, as per the order under revision, the District Commission has allowed the petition and appointed an Electrical Engineer as the Expert Commissioner.  It is stated in the order that the opposite party had no objection in an Expert Commissioner being appointed, which statement is wrong since the Revision Petitioner had filed written objections. 

          4.       According to the counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the order under revision has been passed without considering the various objections raised by the Revision Petitioner.  Therefore it is contended that the order of the District Commission is liable to be set aside.

          5.       Heard.  This revision petition is posted before us for admission.  We have perused the order under revision carefully.  As per the order what the District Commission has done is only to appoint an Expert Commissioner to inspect the articles that are alleged to be defective and to submit a report.  The Expert has been appointed on the basis of a conclusion that expert evidence was essential for the adjudication of the complaint.  The main ground of attack against the said order is that the said order has been passed without considering the objections filed by the Revision Petitioner.  A copy of the objections filed has been produced as Exhibit D4 in these proceedings.  Therefore, we shall consider the said objections here.

          6.       The first objection is that, the respondent is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the Act for short).  The said question relates to the maintainability of the complaint, which has to be considered by the District Commission.  The said objection has no relevance as far as the question of appointment of an Expert Commissioner is concerned.  The second objection is that, the glass counters were manufactured on the basis of a work order issued by the respondent after which they were installed.  The counters were verified and made sure that they were functioning to the satisfaction of the respondent.  There was no guarantee or warranty for the product.  Therefore no purpose would be served by deputing an Expert to verify the working of the counters. 

          7.       The above contention also has no relevance since what is sought to be ascertained is the present condition of the glass counters though they may have worked properly at the time of installation.  The further contention is that the glass counters were supplied two years back and that it was impossible to verify the working of the counters at the time of their supply.  Since what is sought to be ascertained is their present condition, the above objection also lacks substance.  It is further contended that, the materials used by the Revision Petitioner were purchased from other manufacturers and for any defects in their functioning, it is the manufacturers of the said parts who are liable.  Therefore, we do not find any substance in the objections filed by the Revision Petitioner.

          8.       Apart from the above, absolutely no prejudice has been caused to the Revision Petitioner by the order under revision.  What has been ordered is only the appointment of an Expert Commissioner, who has been directed to conduct his inspection only with proper notice to the Revision Petitioner also.  The Revision Petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to submit work memo if he wanted any additional aspects to be noted.  If the report of the Commissioner is against him, the Revision Petitioner could file objections in respect of the same and challenge the report.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission warranting interference in the revision.

               This revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL