KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NOS.107/10 & 108/10
COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31.1.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
APPEAL NO.107/10
M/s.Malabar Motors
VI/194, Vishal Complex, -- APPELLANT
Maruthua Road, Palakkad – 678 001
Reptd. by its Proprietor Bilal.S.
(By Adv.Narayan.R)
Vs.
1. K.V.Jayarajan,
S/o Velayudhan,
Kizhekkekkara House,
Kumaranalloor, Palakkad.
2. M/s.Escorts Limited, -- RESPONDENTS
Customer Service Division,
Plot No.115, Sector-24,
Faridabad-121 005, Haryana,
Reptd. by its M.D.
(By Adv.V.Unnikrishnan)
APPEAL NO.108/10
M/s.Escorts Limited, -- APPELLANT
Customer Service Division,
Plot No.115, Sector-24,
Faridabad-121 005, Haryana,
Reptd. by its authorized signatory
Vinod Dixit.
(By Adv.Narayan.R)
Vs.
1. K.V.Jayarajan,
S/o Velayudhan,
Kizhekkekkara House,
Kumaranalloor, Palakkad.
2. M/s.Malabar Motors
VI/194, Vishal Complex, -- RESPONDENTS
Maruthua Road, Palakkad – 678 001
Reptd. by its Managing Partner.
(R1 by Adv.V.Unnikrishnan)
COMMON JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
The appellant in A.107/10 is the dealer/first opposite party in CC.31/08 and the appellant in A.108/10 is the second opposite party/manufacturer in CC.31/08 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad.
2. The complaint is with respect to the compensation sought for the alleged defective tractor purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.5,52,000/-. The Forum has directed the opposite parties to pay the above sum towards the price of the tractor and Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest at 9% from the date of the order.
3. We find that the order is a non speaking one despite the fact that the complainant has produced Exts.A1 to A11 and the opposite party produced Ext.B1 and filed proof affidavits. The Forum is expected to dispose of the matter on merits and not in such a fashion as is evidenced by the judgment. The Forum is actually doing a dis-service to the consumers out of ignorance or out of laches.
4. We find that no steps were taken to get an expert report. No oral evidence was adduced. The facts of the case call for detailed evidence. It is the case of the complainant that the tractor is still with the opposite parties. On the other hand the opposite parties have stated in the proof affidavit that complainant has sold the vehicle to another person during the pendency of the case. They have also produced attested photo copy of the agreement for sale as per which the possession of the vehicle has been handed over to one Natesan of Erode for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- along with the obligation to remit the finance installments to Sundaresan Finance, Ernakulam. Of course, the opposite party has not filed any additional version. The counsel for the respondents/complainant still asserts that the tractor is still with the opposite parties and that he has not taken possession to the same. All the above matters have to be sorted out before the Forum. The order of the Forum ought to have reflected the findings based on the facts instead of the subjective satisfaction recorded in one or two sentences.
5. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Forum for fresh consideration. The Forum is directed to see that an expert report in the matter is produced and the evidence as to the alleged sale etc. is also adduced in detail and dispose of the matter on merits. The case stands posted before the Forum on 30.3.2011.
The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT
