Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/775

BRANCH COMMERCIAL MANAGER M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG CO TLD - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAYARAJAN K - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 775/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 02.08.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.248/2014

on the file of CDRF, Kasaragod)

PRESENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

The Branch Commercial Manager, M/s.Godrej and Boyce Mfg.No.Ltd, 2^nd Floor, Angel’s Arcade, South Kalamassery,

Kochi, Pin – 682 022

 

                        (By Adv.Sri.K.T.Sidhique)

 

                                        VS

RESPONDENTS

1. Jayarajan, K., S/o.M.V. Kunhappan Nair, Residing at Kalloravi, Near Kovval Store, Kanhangad South, Pin – 671 315

 

2. M/s.E-Planet, The Electronics Store, North Kottacherry, Kanhangad.P.O, Pin – 671 315

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

             The second opposite party in CC.No.248/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, in short, the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the district forum by which they were directed to pay Rs 13,000/- to the complainant and to take back the defective refrigerator from the complainant and pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation along with cost of Rs 3000/-.

                        2.     The brief case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Godrej Refrigerator from the opposite party no.1 manufactured by the opposite party no.2, on 03.06.2014 by paying an amount of Rs 13,000/-. After two months of delivery it developed some defects such as the door of the refrigerator was found unstable and the cooling effect of the refrigerator was excessive etc. Further the handle of the door was broken. Inspite of repairing the defects to the opposite party no.1 in time, they have not rendered any service. The refrigerator has serious manufacturing defects and due to the defects the complainant could not use the refrigerator peacefully for his requirement. Due to the same complaint had sustained mental agony and mental loss. Hence the complaint.

 

                3. Even though notice was served on the first opposite party they did not appear and they were set exparte. The second opposite party appeared through their Assistant Manager one Mr.Abhilash and prayed for time for filing version. Thereafter there was no representation for the second opposite party and they have not filed version. So the second opposite party was also set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant the district forum has passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the second opposite party had filed the present appeal.

 

             4 .Heard both sides. Perused the records.

             5.        Counsel for the complainant that there was no willful latches or negligence on the part of the second opposite party in filing version in time before the district forum and in fact that they filed version with a petition to set aside the exparte order. The second opposite party was under the impression that the petition filed by them to set aside the exparte order will be allowed and considering the contentions raised by them in the version, realizing the true state of things, the complaint will be dismissed. He submitted that an opportunity may be given to the second appellant / second opposite party to contest the case and to have a decision of the complaint on merits.

 

             6.                On perusal of the records of the district forum it is seen that on 16.04.2015 one Abhilash the Assistant Manager of the second opposite party appeared before the district forum and prayed for time. It was adjourned to 16.05.2015. On 16.05.2015 the case was adjourned to 10.06.2015. The case was adjourned 10.06.2015 for filing version by the second opposite party. But on that day the second opposite party has not filed the version and there was no representation for the second opposite party. Hence they were set exparte. On that day the complainant filed the affidavit and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. The matter was heard and taken for final orders to 15.06.2015. The second opposite party filed IA.No.170/2015 to set aside the exparte order passed against him and also filed written version. The said petition was posted for objection and hearing to 29.06.2015. But on 29.06.2015 there was no representation for the second opposite party. Hence that IA was dismissed and later the district forum has passed the final order in the complaint. So it can be seen that there was latches or negligence on the part of the second opposite party in not appearing before the district forum and not filing version in time. We find no merit for the reasons stated by the appellant / second opposite party for not filing the version in time and for not appearing before the district forum after filing version with petition to set aside the exparte order. However, considering the facts that the appellant / second opposite party had already filed version and on perusing the order passed by the district forum, we consider that an opportunity has to be given to the appellant / second opposite party to contest the case, to have a decision of the complaint on merits. For that purpose, the order passed by the district forum is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the district forum for fresh disposal.

 

             7.                Remission of the case, setting aside the order of the district forum can be allowed only on terms, on payment of cost to the first respondent / complainant to compensate the injury that is likely to be caused to him due to the delay in culmination of the proceedings. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs 5000/- to the first respondent / complainant as a condition for setting aside the order and the remission of the case to the district forum.

            

             8.                At the time of fling of the appeal the appellant has deposited Rs 13,000/-. The first respondent / complainant is permitted to obtain release of the amount of Rs 5000/- ordered as cost from the said amount, on filing proper application. Release the balance amount to the appellant, on proper application.

 

             In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Order passed by the district forum is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh disposal. The district forum shall accept / receive the version already filed by the second opposite party/ appellant and give them an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and to adduce evidence, if any. The district forum shall dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible as possible.

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 775/15

JUDGMENT DATED :02.08.2019