KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 272/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 22.10.2024

(Against the Order in C.C. 300/2020 of DCDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR            : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                                     : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Artist Sasikala, Sasikala, Thavakkara, P.O. Civil Station, Kannur-670 002.

(Party in person)

RESPONDENT:

Manager, Omega Sales Agencies, Kefcon Junction, National Highway, Keecheri, Pappinissery P.O., Kannur-670 561.

(By Advs. P. Dileepkhan& Deepu U.V.)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C. No. 300/2020 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (for short “the District Commission”). 

2.  The appellant paid Rs. 2,000/- on 10.12.2018 as advance amount to the respondent for the purchase of a cot from the respondent.  The total cost of the cot was Rs. 28,500/-.  It was agreed that the cot would be delivered on 16.12.2018.  However, the cot was delivered only on 23.12.2018, the day just before the date of marriage of the daughter of the appellant.  The balance amount was also paid by the appellant.  However, the cot was found to be defective.  The appellant alleged that the said cot was made of substandard material even though it was agreed to be made of teak wood.  The cot could not be used as it was defective. The respondent did not incline to replace the cot or rectify its defects, despite request.   In the said circumstances, the appellant alleged deficiency in service and claimed an amount of Rs. 1,28,500/-, including the compensation and the amount of the article purchased by the appellant. 

3.  The respondent did not incline to appear before the District Commission even though service of notice was effected.  The respondent also did not file any version before the District Commission.

4.  The appellant filed proof affidavit.  Exhibits A1 and A2 were also marked for the appellant.  After evaluating the contentions in the affidavit in the light of Exhibits A1 and A2, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Accordingly, the District Commission directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 28,500/- paid by the appellant and take back the defective cot.  The District Commission also directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation cum costs.  Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation and costs, this appeal has been filed. 

5.  Service is complete.  However, there is no representation for the respondent. 

6.  Heard the appellant and perused the records. 

7.  Exhibit A1 is the advance slip dated 10.12.2018, whereby the appellant paid an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as advance amount to the respondent. The total cost of the cot was Rs. 28,500/- as is evident from Exhibit A1. As already mentioned above, the District Commission found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Since no appeal has been filed by the respondent against the said finding of the District Commission, the finding of the District Commission in this regard has become final.

8.  The only question raised by the appellant is that the compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission are inadequate.  It appears that apart from directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 28,500/- paid by the appellant to the respondent towards the cost of the cot, the District Commission ordered only an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards compensation and costs together.  It is true that there is no material before the Commission to prove the actual injuries or loss sustained by the appellant. The cot was delivered only on 23.12.2018.  That apart, since the cot was defective, the appellant could not use it and hence, the appellant had to purchase another cot. The appellant has been under mental agony for the last nearly six years.  Taking into consideration of the mental agony suffered and the loss sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 1,500/- ordered by the District Commission towards compensation and costs together is totally inadequate.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the mental agony, loss and injuries sustained by the appellant, we are of the view that the respondent can be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as costs to the appellant, to meet the ends of justice.  It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, this appeal stands allowed and the amount of compensation and costs ordered by the District Commission alone stands modified as above. 

JUSTICE B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR: PRESIDENT

                                                                  AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb