KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 353/2004 JUDGMENT DATED: 18.3.2010 PRESENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER P.M.Kumaran, : APPELLANT Proprietor, Luna Plastics, Baby Lodge Building, M.P.Road, Calicut. (By Adv.Shyam Padman) Vs. M/s Aureola Medical Centre, Opp. Mofussial Bus Stand, : RESPONDENT Mavoor Road, Kozhikode(rep.by its partner Mrs.Khadeeja Ahammed, Lovedale, Feroke College (PO), Kozhikode. (By Adv.Babu.S.Nair) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite party in OP 178/02 before the CDRF, Kozhikode is under the directions to repair the illumination of the sign board fitted by him for the complainant and pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.500/-. It is further directed that if the opposite party failed to comply with the above directions the opposite party has to refund Rs.31000/- with compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of the Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he had engaged the opposite party for fitting a neon light sign board in the premise of the complainant’s clinical laboratory at Mavoor road, Kozhikode. As per the quotation placed by the opposite party it was agreed that the fitting of the signboard would be done by the opposite party on Payment of Rs.24000/- and that the electrification work would be done by the complainant himself. The complainant has submitted that the neon light signboard was not fitted within the agreed time and that the opposite party completed the work only on 22.7.2000 and the same went wrong within a short period of 10 days. It is also submitted by him that another sum of Rs.1000/- was received by the opposite party for repairing the electrification of the illumination fitted to him. Alleging deficiency in service and also using low quality and defective materials, the complaint was filed. 3. The opposite party filed version contending that the complaint was not maintainable and also that the work was done in a correct way using good quality materials only. It was further submitted that the opposite party was not liable for any defects in the electrification and that defects, if any, that occurred in the neon light sign board were repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party vehemently argued the case based on the grounds in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the mandatory requirements contained in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act were not complied with by the complainant to show that the opposite party had used low quality materials in the neon light signboard and hence the Forum has erred in allowing the complaint to a greater extent. It is also his case that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for commercial purpose since it was to augment the business in the clinical laboratory that the complainant had fitted the neon light sign board. It is also his case that the complainant had miserably failed in establishing his case before the Forum. The learned counsel invited our attention to the finding of the Forum below in para 7 of the order where the complainant himself has submitted that “ The learned counsel canvassed for the position that without examining the components one cannot come to a conclusion that materials used are low quality materials. Thus he contended before us that the Forum’s direction to repair the illumination of the sign board and make it defects free and also to pay compensation and costs and in the alternative to pay Rs. 31000/- without compensation and cost are per se illegal and unsustainable and
hence liable to be set aside. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on an appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the opposite party was engaged by the complainant for fitting a neon light sign board at the premises of the complainant. The appellant would argue that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum on the ground that the services were hired for commercial purpose. Any how we do not find much force in the said argument of the learned counsel on the ground that fixing of neon light signboard cannot be treated as services rendered for commercial purpose. It is noted that the complainant has alleged that low quality and defective materials were used for the work of fitting the neon light signboard. However we also note that the Forum itself has found that without examining the materials used inside and outside the board it is not possible to say whether the materials used are of superior or of inferior quality and in the back drop of the said finding we are not inclined to agree with the directions of the Forum below. It is also to be found that the complainant has not taken any effort to convince the Forum that the signboard was not working properly or that there were any defects in the signboard. In the absence of cogent evidence to establish the case of the complainant, it is our concerted opinion that the Forum below has gone wrong in passing the impugned order with the directions contained therein. The same is liable to be set aside and we do so accordingly. In the result the appeal is allowed. The order dated 31.3.04 in OP 178/02 of CDRF, Kozhikkode is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps | 
