KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 220/2004

JUDGMENT DATED: 30.9.2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

The Proprietor,                                          : APPELLANT

Dee Jee Engineering Corporation,

P.B.No.177, Shop No.10,

‘C’ Block, Jai Hind Marketing

Building, Opposite Municipal Office,

Thrissur.

(By Adv.m.k.George)

                   Vs.

M.K.Ravi,                                                   : RESPONDENT

Moozhikunnath House, K.B.Road,

Meppadi.P.O., Vythiri Taluk,

Wayanad District.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the opposite party in OP.181/01 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad.  The appellant is under orders to refund a sum of Rs.12460/- with interest at 6% per annum etc.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a heavy duty drilling machine with accessories from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.12460/- and the same was delivered at Meppady through KRL parcel service on 28.4.2001.  The complainant is a blacksmith. On opening the parcel the machine was supplied was found to be broken.  Although contacted a number of times and as directed the machine was sent back the same or another machine was not supplied.

          3. The opposite parties have contended that the Forum at Wayanad has no jurisdiction  as the premises of the opposite party is situated at Thrissur.  It is contended that the machine was forwarded through the parcel service at the request of the complainant and on payment of the charges by the complainant.  It is denied that the defects of the drilling machine was not manufacturing defect.  All the same the opposite party had agreed to supply a new machine.  But the complainant was asked to come and verify the machine and receive the same.  It is also contended that the stand, the rack and all other accessories are still in the possession of the complainant.

          4. The appellant/opposite party has reiterated the contention that the Forum has no jurisdiction.  It is also contended that the manufacturer has not been impleaded.

          5.  I find that the opposite party had no such contention that the manufacturer is to be impleaded in the version filed.  The name of the manufacturer is also not mentioned.  In the circumstances we find that the above contention is devoid of merits.

          6. The Forum has considered the case of the opposite party regarding jurisdiction.  It was noted that the drilling machine was delivered at the place of the complainant at Meppady and hence part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Wayanad Forum.  I find that the finding of the Forum in this regard is correct.

          7. As to the defect of the machine there is no                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                dispute. Hence we find that no interference is called   for in the order of the Forum.  The same is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

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

          JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

ps