KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 420/2010

JUDGMENT DATED: 29/10/2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR    : MEMBER

M/s Profile Enterprises                             : APPELLANT

Private Limited,

S.V.Colony Road,

Asokapuram, Calicut,

Kozhikode District represented by its

Managing Director Habeeb.

(By Advs.Shiras Aliyar & Suja.R)

                   Vs.

1. Jom C.Michael,                                     :RESPONDENTS

    S/o Michael, Managing Partner,

    M/s Chamakkalayil Silks,

    Opposite P.W.D. Rest House,

    Muvattupuzha Road, Thodupuzha.P.O.,

    (Chamakkalayil House, Muttom Village,

    Thoudpuzha Taluk, Iidukki district)

2. M/s Blusten Limited,

    Millenium Plaza, Alinchuvadu, M.K.K.Nair Road,

     Cochin – 682 024.

(BY Adv.A.Abdul Kharim, counsel for R1 )

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the 1^st opposite party in CC.68/2010 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellant along with the 2^nd opposite party/manufacturer are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,277/- to the complainant being the purchase price of Bluestar cassette type Air Conditioners after taking back the defective machines and also to pay Rs.2000/- as cost.

          2. The matter related to the alleged defective Bluestar cassette type Air Conditioners  purchased by the complainant on 23.3.09.  It is the case of the complainant that the Air Conditioners  were defective from the very beginning and repairs effected could not set right the machines.

          3. The 1^st opposite party was ex parte.  The 2^nd opposite party/manufacturer contested the matter.  It was contended that the complainant had certified that the machines are working in good condition after the repairs were effected.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1; Exts. P1 to P3 and R1.

          5. The appellant herein is the 1^st opposite party/dealer who was ex parte in the proceedings before the Forum.  At the time of hearing  it was submitted by the counsel for the 1^st respondent/complainant that the 2^nd opposite party/manufacturer  have already paid the price of the  2 Air Conditioners   amounting 1,26,000/- that  included 50% of the cost  although the opposite parties are liable jointly and severally.  The case of the appellant/1^st opposite party that 1^st opposite party was not  served with notice etc cannot be believed  in view of the fact that the manufacturer have contested the matter before the Forum.  The case of the appellant that there is no expert evidence and hence the order of the Forum is erroneous cannot be accepted  in view of the fact that the appellant did not contest the matter. On a perusal of the order of the Forum we find that there is no patent illegality in the order.  It is only a formality insisted that after servicing the signature of the customer would be obtained in the report.  Hence we find reliance placed on Ext.R1 service report is irrelevant.  We find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal.

          6. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.

          Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR    : MEMBER

ps